Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Devine Vs. Los Angeles

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 14, 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

35 entries 4 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. Holland Vs. Challen US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1884
  2. Gormley Vs. Clark US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1890
  3. California Powder Works Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1894
  4. Hannewinkle Vs. Georgetown US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1872
  5. Devine v. Los
    Search
  6. Angeles - 202 U.S. 313 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Devine v. Los
    Search
  7. Angeles, 202 U.S. 313 (1906) Devine v. Los
    Search
  8. Mining Company v. Montana
    Search
  9. is not necessary that the complaint should allege the nature of the estate or interest claimed by the defendant. Head v. Fordyce
    Search
  10. Castro v. Barry
    Search
  11. Mining Company v. Mining
    Search
  12. the general rule as to that is thus stated by MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, speaking for the Court, in Boston Mining Company v. Montana
    Search
  13. allegations of the defense which the defendants intend to set up or which they rely upon. Third Street Railway Company v. Lewis
    Search
  14. test as to when a cloud is or is not cast, as stated by Mr. Justice Field, then Chief Justice of California, in Pixley v. Huggins
    Search
  15. Cal. 127, and reasserted in Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
    Search
  16. conferred on the city such rights in respect of the waters of the river as may have been vested in the state. Hooker v. Los
    Search
  17. in the present bill. It originated in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles under the title of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy
    Search
  18. or the Revised Statutes, that was inapplicable. Holt v. Indiana
    Search
  19. or rights, as put forward in the bill, are not federal questions, but questions of state or general law. In Hooker v. Los
    Search
  20. was one of state law and of general public law, on which the decision of the state court was final. San Francisco v. Scott
    Search
  21. Crystal Springs Land & Water Company v. Los
    Search
  22. of the acts. The bill was dismissed, and we affirmed the judgment. We there cited, among other cases, Phillips v. Mound
    Search
  23. City Association, 124 U. S. 605 , and Robinson v. Anderson
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Devine v. Los
    Search
  25. Head v. Fordyce
    Search
  26. Boston Mining Company v. Montana
    Search
  27. Third Street Railway Company v. Lewis
    Search
  28. Pixley v. Huggins
    Search
  29. Hooker v. Los
    Search
  30. of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy
    Search
  31. Holt v. Indiana
    Search
  32. In Hooker v. Los
    Search
  33. San Francisco v. Scott
    Search
  34. Phillips v. Mound
    Search
  35. and Robinson v. Anderson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial