Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

James Vs. Appel

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 04, 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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

26 entries 4 linked 22 unlinked
Show
  1. Henrietta Mining and Milling Co. Vs. Gardner US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1899
    Relied / Followed
  2. Bent Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1891
  3. Tucker Vs. Oxley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1809
    Relied / Followed
  4. Ferris Vs. Higley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  5. U.S. 129 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court James v. Appel
    Search
  6. U.S. 129 (1904) James v. Appel
    Search
  7. then to act upon it. If the requirement could be avoided by a continuance, it would be made almost nugatory. McKean v. Ziller
    Search
  8. Bullock v. Ballew
    Search
  9. Bass v. Hays
    Search
  10. even a foreign, state, it generally is presumed to be adopted with the construction which it has received. Tucker v. Oxley
    Search
  11. Commonwealth v. Hartnett
    Search
  12. Gray, 450. See Coulam v. Doull
    Search
  13. well as that of the meaning of the words, the act had been construed as in Texas by the Supreme Court of Arizona. Ruff v. Hand
    Search
  14. it, but mean that the motion shall be barred by the lapse of time, adopting the decision of the year before in Ruff v. Hand
    Search
  15. of granting the motion may be reviewed along with the other matters brought before the supreme court. See Spicer v. Simms
    Search
  16. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Backus
    Search
  17. with new trials altogether. A rule of practice like this does not touch jurisdiction in any proper sense. Ferris v. Higley
    Search
  18. the local legislature from making this not unusual or unreasonable rule. Page 192 U. S. 138 See Hornbuckle v. Toombs
    Search
  19. Greeley v. Winsor
    Search
  20. U.S. Supreme Court James v. Appel
    Search
  21. McKean v. Ziller
    Search
  22. See Coulam v. Doull
    Search
  23. the Supreme Court of Arizona. Ruff v. Hand
    Search
  24. Ruff v. Hand
    Search
  25. See Spicer v. Simms
    Search
  26. See Hornbuckle v. Toombs
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales