Citation network
King Vs. Virginia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 31, 1910
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
-
U.S. 92 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court King v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. 92 (1910) King v. VirginiaSearch
-
of error, and so held as to the statute of West Virginia involved in this case and sustained as constitutional in King v. MullinsSearch
-
proceeds if he files a petition and proves title, or, if he prefers, may redeem. Further details are stated in King v. MullinsSearch
-
Constitution and statute referred to was considered and maintained in a suit concerning this same tract. See also King v. PantherSearch
-
Swann v. WestSearch
-
court had jurisdiction, and that, if it made a mistake, it would be only error to be corrected in the usual way. King v. DoolittleSearch
-
affirmed, even if they had instigated and contributed to the appeal. Pages 559, et seq. See Rumford Chemical Works v. HygienicSearch
-
Chemical Co., 215 U. S. 156 . Finally, in State v. KingSearch
-
King still may redeem. The court has indicated a tendency to believe that the old decree still bound the state, King v. MasonSearch
-
W.Va. 607, while it clearly holds that it does not bind parties afterwards introduced. State v. KingSearch
-
are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. But that question Page 216 U. S. 100 was answered in King v. MullinsSearch
-
shall discuss it no more. It hardly is necessary to add that, on a writ of error, we do not deal with the facts, Behn v. CampbellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
which latter we by no means intimate was done, it is a matter that cannot be complained of here. See Patterson v. ColoradoSearch
-
the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power. Remington v. CentralSearch
-
Co., Page 216 U. S. 101 198 U. S. 95 , 198 U. S. 99 -100. See Great Western Telegraph Co. v. BurnhamSearch
-
U. S. 343 . In some states, it is true that a stricter rule is applied, Northern Pacific R. Co. v. EllisSearch
-
it, or to prevent a state from allowing past action to be modified while a case remains in court. See San Francisco v. ItsellSearch
-
the state's decision is final. Giving prima facie effect to the document cannot be questioned seriously. Marx v. HanthornSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court King v. VirginiaSearch
-
King v. MullinsSearch
-
King v. PantherSearch
-
King v. DoolittleSearch
-
See Rumford Chemical Works v. HygienicSearch
-
State v. KingSearch
-
King v. MasonSearch
-
Behn v. CampbellSearch
-
See Patterson v. ColoradoSearch
-
Remington v. CentralSearch
-
See Great Western Telegraph Co. v. BurnhamSearch
-
See San Francisco v. ItsellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial