Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mcgovern Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1913

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

29 entries 4 linked 25 unlinked
Show
  1. Appleby Vs. Buffalo US Supreme Court · May 29, 1911
  2. Boom Company Vs. Patterson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Lovejoy Vs. Murray US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1865
  4. Boston Chamber of Commerce Vs. Boston US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1910
  5. McGovern v. New
    Search
  6. York - 229 U.S. 363 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court McGovern v. New
    Search
  7. York, 229 U.S. 363 (1913) McGovern v. New
    Search
  8. question unless there is something more than an ordinary honest mistake of law in the proceedings. Backus v. Fort
    Search
  9. Amendment unless the rulings of law prevented the owner from obtaining substantially any compensation. Appleby v. Buffalo
    Search
  10. can be acquired without the exercise of eminent domain is too remote and speculative to be allowed. C., B. & Q. Ry. v. Chicago
    Search
  11. in eminent domain proceedings is entitled to be paid only for what is taken as the title stands, Chamber of Commerce v. Boston
    Search
  12. hypothetical possibilities of change cannot be considered. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar
    Search
  13. Water Co., ante, p. 229 U. S. 53 , followed, and Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  14. of his property, can come to this Court. The result of a judgment in trover, at least, if satisfied ( Lovejoy v. Murray
    Search
  15. Miller v. Hyde
    Search
  16. compensation before a party can make out that the state has deprived him of his property unconstitutionally. Backus v. Fort
    Search
  17. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  18. too remote and speculative to have any legitimate effect upon the valuation. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  19. was considerable enough to be a practical consideration and actually to influence prices. Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston
    Search
  20. form by the disallowance of the strategic value for improvements of the island in St. Mary's River in United States v. Chandler-Dunbar
    Search
  21. and Page 229 U. S. 373 the wide discretion allowed to the trial court are well brought out in Sargent v. Merrimac
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court McGovern v. New
    Search
  23. Backus v. Fort
    Search
  24. C., B. & Q. Ry. v. Chicago
    Search
  25. Chamber of Commerce v. Boston
    Search
  26. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar
    Search
  27. and Boom Co. v. Patterson
    Search
  28. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  29. Sargent v. Merrimac
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales