Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ex Parte Wisner

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 10, 1906

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

28 entries 5 linked 23 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcintire Vs. Wood US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1813
  2. Sheldon Vs. Sill US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  3. Stevenson Vs. Fain US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1904
  4. Fisk Vs. Henarie US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1892
    Distinguished
  5. Louisville Trust Co. Vs. Comingor US Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1902
  6. The motion was heard and denied April 2, 1906, the circuit court referring to Foulk v. Gray
    Search
  7. F. 156, and Rome Petroleum Company v. Hughes
    Search
  8. derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it, United States v. Hudson
    Search
  9. Cranch 32, but the jurisdiction of the circuit courts depends upon some act of Congress. Turner v. Bank
    Search
  10. under section 2 unless it be one that plaintiff could have brought originally in the circuit court. Tennessee v. Bank
    Search
  11. Mexican National Railroad v. Davidson
    Search
  12. Cochran v. Montgomery
    Search
  13. County, 199 U. S. 260 , 199 U. S. 272 . Page 203 U. S. 458 In Shaw v. Quincy
    Search
  14. McCormick Harvesting Co. v. Walthers
    Search
  15. by this Court, is to contract, not to enlarge, the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States. Smith v. Lyon
    Search
  16. In short, the acts of 1887, 1888 restored the rule of 1789, as we stated in Cochran v. Montgomery
    Search
  17. U. S. 18 , 184 U. S. 25 . In Central Trust Company v. McGeorge
    Search
  18. to the result announced, while in this case, there was no such consent. As was stated by MR. JUSTICE BREWER in Kinney v. Columbia
    Search
  19. Ry. Co. v. McBride
    Search
  20. Foulk v. Gray
    Search
  21. and Rome Petroleum Company v. Hughes
    Search
  22. of Congress. Turner v. Bank
    Search
  23. Tennessee v. Bank
    Search
  24. In Shaw v. Quincy
    Search
  25. of the United States. Smith v. Lyon
    Search
  26. In Central Trust Company v. McGeorge
    Search
  27. Kinney v. Columbia
    Search
  28. United States v. Hudson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial