Citation network
Kentucky Union Co. Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 03, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 140 (1911) U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky Union Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 140 (1911) Kentucky Union Company v. KentuckySearch
-
their assessment and collection and not impairing vested rights are not forbidden by the federal Constitution. League v. TexasSearch
-
Constitution are those relating to criminal punishment, and not retrospective laws of a different nature. Calder v. BullSearch
-
actions, fixed, in view of particular conditions, by the legislature, does not deny due process of law, Terry v. AndersonSearch
-
of 1789 protects the holders of grants under Virginia from acts by Kentucky, cutting down substantial rights, Green v. BiddleSearch
-
from constitutional enactments of Kentucky in regard to the taxation or registration of their property. Hawkins v. BarneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
A state may classify subjects so long as all persons similarly situated are treated alike. Michigan Central R. Co. v. PowersSearch
-
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its operation is confined to those counties. Florida R. Co. v. ReynoldsSearch
-
without due process of law, because the state exercises its rights in a constitutional manner. Citizens' National Bank v. KentuckySearch
-
and not impairing vested rights, are not forbidden by the federal Page 219 U. S. 153 Constitution. League v. TexasSearch
-
the term is used in the federal Constitution, prohibiting the states from passing any law of that character. Calder v. BullSearch
-
laws of a different character. That case has been cited and followed in later cases in this Court. See Kring v. MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 278 , 183 U. S. 285 . In the latter case, a former decision of this Court, in Carpenter v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
after its organization, in opinions carefully prepared, and has been repeatedly announced since that time. Calder v. BullSearch
-
Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
-
been allowed opportunity to be heard in opposition to the enforcement of taxes and penalties against him. In McMillen v. AndersonSearch
-
See, in this connection, Leigh v. GreenSearch
-
the proceedings, have been held to satisfy the requirements of due process of law. Security Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. LexingtonSearch
-
in some respects analogous to the one under consideration now. The West Virginia system was before this Court in King v. MullinsSearch
-
in which there is opportunity for a hearing and after which the forfeiture may be declared. The case of King v. MullinsSearch
-
supra, was followed and approved in this Court in King v. WestSearch
-
Virginia, 216 U. S. 92 , and in Fay v. CrozerSearch
-
having in view particular Page 219 U. S. 157 conditions, without violating the due process clause. Terry v. AndersonSearch
-
feature of the law, in substance, is in the West Virginia Constitution, and was referred to in the opinion in King v. MullinsSearch
-
the West Virginia Constitution did not invalidate the law where opportunity was given for a hearing was held in King v. WestSearch
-
Virginia, supra, to have been concluded by King v. MullinsSearch
-
supra, and the same doctrine was applied in Fay v. CrozerSearch
-
the old Virginia grants for the benefit of occupying claimants, but as Page 219 U. S. 158 was held in King v. MullinsSearch
-
described, he must show that the land sought to be recovered is within boundary, and without the exclusions. Hall v. MartinSearch
-
law in a part of the counties of the state does not render it obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida R. Co. v. ReynoldsSearch
-
classify the subjects of taxation so long as all persons similarly situated are treated alike. Michigan Central R. Co. v. PowersSearch
-
of the law against it. In such cases, the doctrine of innocent purchasers does not apply. Citizens' Natl. Bank v. KentuckySearch
-
of frequent consideration in the courts of Kentucky, and more than once in this Court. In the case of Green v. BiddleSearch
-
the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington. The Virginia compact came again before this Court in the case of Hawkins v. BarneySearch
-
twenty, as was the case under the laws of Virginia at the time the compact was made, was sustained. The case of Green v. BiddleSearch
-
of Virginia prior to its date, so as to take away substantial rights incident to the title, as was the case in Green v. BiddleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky Union Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
Kentucky Union Company v. KentuckySearch
-
Constitution. League v. TexasSearch
-
Terry v. AndersonSearch
-
Green v. BiddleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial