Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ex Parte Harding

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 20, 1911

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

29 entries 3 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Virginia Vs. Rives US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
    Distinguished
  2. Dowell Vs. Applegate US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1894
    Relied / Followed
  3. Hine Vs. Morse US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1910
    Relied / Followed
  4. and therefore that such decisions are not open to collateral attack, has been so often expounded ( see Dowell v. Applegate
    Search
  5. U. S. 327 , 152 U. S. 337 , and cases cited), and has been so recently applied ( Hine v. Morse
    Search
  6. necessary that the briefest possible recurrence be had to two leading cases which long preceded them, viz., Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  7. U. S. 313 , and Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  8. U. S. 107 . In Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  9. would otherwise have existed to correct the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the circuit court. In Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  10. and to restore the accused to the custody of the state authorities. The Court, reaffirming the doctrine of Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  11. States, could not possibly have exercised a discretion to decide a matter which was within its jurisdiction. Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  12. and Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  13. U. S. 578 , and ending with Ex Parte Gruetter, 217 U. S. 586 , and the other beginning with Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  14. decision in Ex Parte Hoard was based. The conflict just stated becomes more manifest when the ruling in Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  15. the two lines of cases, it is manifest that it was not conceived that there was conflict between them, since Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  16. case (the Wisner ) presented a total absence of jurisdiction, involving no element of discretion, and Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  17. had been exerted in the Wisner case. Again, in In re Winn, it is to be observed that not only was Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  18. cited, but the cases of Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  19. and Kentucky v. Powers
    Search
  20. U. S. 1 (the last of which also concerned a criminal prosecution in which the doctrine of Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  21. simply been occasioned, beginning with Ex Parte Wisner, from applying the exceptional rule announced in Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  22. Wisner, In re Moore, and In re Winn to the extent that those cases applied the exceptional rule of Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  23. Hoard and the cases which have followed it, and the Page 219 U. S. 380 exception established by Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  24. In Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  25. In Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  26. of Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  27. Virginia v. Paul
    Search
  28. and Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  29. of Virginia v. Paul
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial