Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Murray Vs. Wilson Distilling Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1909

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

34 entries 3 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. Hagood Vs. Southern US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1886
  2. Chandler Vs. Dix US Supreme Court · May 31, 1904
  3. New Hampshire Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1883
  4. Murray v. Wilson
    Search
  5. Distilling Co. - 213 U.S. 151 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Murray v. Wilson
    Search
  6. Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151 (1909) Murray v. Wilson
    Search
  7. an individual and a state cannot, against the objection of the state, be maintained in the federal courts. Christian v. Atlantic
    Search
  8. to be sued in its own courts by a creditor does not give that creditor the right to sue in a federal court. Chandler v. Dix
    Search
  9. that business, the state does not thereby lose the exemption from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. South Carolina v. United
    Search
  10. Acts S.Car. 1895, p. 721. This last-mentioned act is set out in full in a marginal note to the opinion in Scott v. Donald
    Search
  11. direct to consumers. The act of 1896 was amended in particulars not necessary to be detailed, in March, 1897. In Vance v. Vandercook
    Search
  12. to the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States was passed upon. The limited ruling made in Scott v. Donald
    Search
  13. referred to as the Wilson Act. It was decided that, as the provisions in the prior act, which were held in Scott v. Donald
    Search
  14. as it exerted the absolute control of the state over the purchase and sale of liquor within the state. In State v. Farnum
    Search
  15. of the Constitution and statutes, is removed beyond all possible controversy by the decision of this Court in Vance v. Vandercook
    Search
  16. by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to the state statute prior to the commencement of this litigation, in State v. Farnum
    Search
  17. and a state cannot, against the objection of the state, be maintained in a court of the United States. Thus, in Hagood v. Southern
    Search
  18. In the subsequent case of Christian v. Atlantic
    Search
  19. Amendment that the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to such suits. New Hampshire v. Louisiana
    Search
  20. Louisiana v. Junel
    Search
  21. Mayre v. Parsons
    Search
  22. one of its creditors, a right would not exist in such creditor to sue the state in a court of the United States. Smith v. Reeves
    Search
  23. a mere contract creditor of the State of South Carolina, is not in anywise controlled by the ruling in South Carolina v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Murray v. Wilson
    Search
  25. Christian v. Atlantic
    Search
  26. the Eleventh Amendment. South Carolina v. United
    Search
  27. In Vance v. Vandercook
    Search
  28. In State v. Farnum
    Search
  29. Vance v. Vandercook
    Search
  30. State v. Farnum
    Search
  31. of Christian v. Atlantic
    Search
  32. of the United States. Smith v. Reeves
    Search
  33. South Carolina v. United
    Search
  34. Scott v. Donald
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial