Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Madisonville Traction Co. Vs. St. Bernard Mining Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 16, 1905

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

68 entries 10 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Steamship Company Vs. Tugman US Supreme Court · Nov 06, 1882
  2. Kern Vs. Huidekoper US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  3. Marshall Vs. Holmes US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1891
  4. Dietzsch Vs. Huidekoper US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  5. Harkrader Vs. Wadley US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1898
  6. Carson Vs. Hyatt US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  7. Sweet Vs. Rechel US Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1895
  8. Sargent Vs. Helton US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1885
  9. Gaines Vs. Fuentes US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  10. Loan Association Vs. Topeka US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  11. lose jurisdiction to proceed further, and all subsequent proceedings in that court will be void. Railroad Company v. Mississippi
    Search
  12. Railroad v. Koontz
    Search
  13. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co. v. McLean
    Search
  14. Crehore v. Ohio
    Search
  15. the party against whom a cause has been legally removed from taking further steps in the state court. French v. Hay
    Search
  16. Moran v. Sturgess
    Search
  17. U. S. 256 , 154 U. S. 270 . See also Sargent v. Helton
    Search
  18. Gates v. Bucki
    Search
  19. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kuteman
    Search
  20. Iron Mountain R. Co. v. Memphis
    Search
  21. James v. Central
    Search
  22. is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made. Stone v. South
    Search
  23. Railway Co. v. Dunn
    Search
  24. Page 196 U. S. 246 it could have been brought originally in the circuit court of the United States. Tennessee v. Union
    Search
  25. Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson
    Search
  26. Minnesota v. Northern
    Search
  27. defining the judicial power of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court in Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  28. In Kohl v. United
    Search
  29. Two cases very much in point are Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  30. U. S. 403 , and Searl v. School
    Search
  31. District No. 2, 124 U. S. 197 . Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  32. extending the judicial power of the United States, to controversies between citizens of different states. Paul v. Virginia
    Search
  33. Wall. 177. And in Gaines v. Fuentes
    Search
  34. Searl v. School
    Search
  35. Such a proceeding, according to the decision of this Court in Kohl v. United
    Search
  36. After referring to prior cases, including Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  37. observed from an examination of the Searl case that this Court cited with approval Colorado Midland Railway Co. v. Jones
    Search
  38. F. 193, and the Mineral Range Railroad Co. v. Detroit
    Search
  39. BREWER, then circuit judge, after referring to the local statute under which the company proceeded, and to Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  40. and Searl v. School
    Search
  41. In Mineral Range R. Co. v. Detroit
    Search
  42. Copper Page 196 U. S. 250 Co., Mr. Justice Brown, then district judge, after referring to Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  43. F. 520. In the more recent case of Smith v. Adams
    Search
  44. charged with some duties of an administrative character, is a judicial tribunal and a court of record. Fletcher v. Leight
    Search
  45. Pennington v. Woolfolk
    Search
  46. That principle, this Court has said, grows out of the essential nature of all free governments. Loan Association v. Topeka
    Search
  47. made at the time of appropriation, to ascertain and secure the compensation to be made to the owner. Cherokee Nation v. Southern
    Search
  48. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  49. principles is inconsistent with the due process of law prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. C., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  50. Co. v. National
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial