Citation network
Sauer Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1907
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Sauer v. NewSearch
-
York - 206 U.S. 536 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Sauer v. NewSearch
-
York, 206 U.S. 536 (1907) Sauer v. NewSearch
-
the Court of Appeals holding that the rule of the Elevated Railroad cases did not apply in such a case. Muhlker v. HarlemSearch
-
damages for the impairment of access to his land and the lessening of the circulation of light and air over it. Selden v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
Willis v. WinonaSearch
-
Colclough v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Walish v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Home Building Company v. RoanokeSearch
-
Va. 52 (cited with apparent approval by this Court in Meyer v. RichmondSearch
-
Willets Manufacturing Co. v. MercerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brand v. MultnomahSearch
-
Sears v. CrockerSearch
-
Semble ) Delucca v. NorthSearch
-
Little Rock, 142 F. 597). The case of Willis v. WinonaSearch
-
are not authority in his favor, for they recognize and affirm the very doctrine that we have laid down, Story v. NewSearch
-
such regulations as Congress shall make. It was from this provision of the Constitution that Marshall, in Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
by this Court in so many cases that the citation of them would be an idle parade. It is enough to refer to Murdock v. MemphisSearch
-
providing that, in doing so, they deny no federal right of the owner. The plaintiff asserts that the case of Story v. NewSearch
-
If the facts upon which this claim is based are accurately stated, then the case comes within the authority of Muhlker v. RailroadSearch
-
of a structure useless for general street purposes, and as foreign thereto as the house in Vesey Street, Corning v. LowerreSearch
-
Johns.Ch. 439, or the freight depot, Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
In the case of Lahr v. MetropolitanSearch
-
In the case of Kane v. ElevatedSearch
-
and the same structure for the use of public travel is clearly illustrated in the contrast in the decisions of Reining v. RailroadSearch
-
N.Y. 157, and Talbot v. RailroadSearch
-
overruled the Elevated Railroad cases, and this view was supported by the Court of Appeals itself in Lewis v. RailroadSearch
-
agree with the opinion and judgment of the Court. I think this case cannot be distinguished in principle from Muhlker v. HarlemSearch
-
Burrell v. NewSearch
-
York & Harlem Railroad Co., and Kierns v. NewSearch
-
On the authority of those cases, the judgment in this case should be reversed. Those cases were determined by Story v. ElevatedSearch
-
Railroad, 90 N.Y. 122, and Lahr v. MetropolitanSearch
-
to be familiar, and a structure of substantially similar character was the subject of the controversy in Muhlker v. HarlemSearch
-
Railroad Co., Burrell v. SameSearch
-
and Kierns v. SameSearch
-
for the public easement, which was limited to a maintenance of such open streets and perpetual frontage. People v. KerrSearch
-
Craig v. RochesterSearch
-
in error have sustained by the violation of a right which this Court said, in the Muhlker case, citing Barnett v. JohnsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sauer v. NewSearch
-
Muhlker v. HarlemSearch
-
Selden v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
Delucca v. NorthSearch
-
of Willis v. WinonaSearch
-
Story v. NewSearch
-
Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
of Story v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial