Citation network
Bates and Guild Co. Vs. Payne
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 11, 1904
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Bates & Guild Co. v. PayneSearch
-
U.S. 106 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Bates & Guild Co. v. PayneSearch
-
U.S. 106 (1904) Bates & Guild Co. v. PayneSearch
-
the power, and will occasionally exercise the right of so doing. As to what is second class mail matter, Houghton v. PayneSearch
-
decision of the Postmaster General in every individual instance. In the case of American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySearch
-
although such proceedings involve to a certain extent, the exercise of judicial power. As was said in Burfenning v. ChicagoSearch
-
Citing cases). See also Johnson v. DrewSearch
-
his authority or this Court should be of opinion that his action was clearly wrong. In the early case of Decatur v. PauldingSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
or resolution, are not mere ministerial duties, and, as was said by this Court in the recent case of Riverside Oil Co. v. HitchcockSearch
-
In Marquez v. FrisbieSearch
-
In Gaines v. ThompsonSearch
-
by injunction than by mandamus to control the action of the head of a department, and in United States ex Rel. Dunlap v. BlackSearch
-
duties require an interpretation of the law, no appellate power being given them for that purpose. See also Redfield v. WindomSearch
-
in the opinion and judgment of the Court. Our reasons for dissenting are stated in the opinion filed by us in Houghton v. PayneSearch
-
unless such practice rests upon a construction of the statute which is clearly and obviously wrong. In United States v. PhilbrickSearch
-
So, in United States v. HealeySearch
-
The authorities to that effect are numerous. Edwards v. DarbySearch
-
Hahn v. UnitedSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HillSearch
-
United States v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 139 , 180 U. S. 157 . Some of them are cited in the opinion of the court in Houghton v. PayneSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bates & Guild Co. v. PayneSearch
-
of American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySearch
-
Burfenning v. ChicagoSearch
-
Johnson v. DrewSearch
-
of Decatur v. PauldingSearch
-
of Riverside Oil Co. v. HitchcockSearch
-
Rel. Dunlap v. BlackSearch
-
Redfield v. WindomSearch
-
In United States v. PhilbrickSearch
-
Edwards v. DarbySearch
-
United States v. JohnstonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial