Citation network
Donnelly Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 07, 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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States - 228 U.S. 243 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913) Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
about setting apart and reserving portions of the public domain in aid of particular public purposes. Wolcott v. DesSearch
-
U. S. 394 , 160 U. S. 404 . See also United States v. LeathersSearch
-
United States v. MartinSearch
-
McFadden v. MountainSearch
-
Gibson v. AndersonSearch
-
United States v. GrandSearch
-
Crichton v. SheltonSearch
-
hereafter. In passing upon the effect of the act admitting Alabama into the Union, this Court held, in Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
and the soil beneath them, was in the state, and subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction. In Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
for determining what is navigable Page 228 U. S. 261 water, is not applicable to this country. In Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
not for others to raise objections. In our view of the subject, the correct principles were laid down in Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
How. 212, and Goodtitle v. KibbeSearch
-
which are equally applicable to all navigable waters. And since this Court, in the case of The Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
The doctrine thus enunciated has since been adhered to. Packer v. BirdSearch
-
St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. WaterSearch
-
Leovy v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RioSearch
-
Court of that state to be exclusive, so that no other rivers are navigable under the laws of California. Cardwell v. SacramentoSearch
-
by which the Extension of the Hoopa Valley Reservation was established. In the important case of Lux v. HagginSearch
-
had, in the nonnavigable streams and the soil beneath them. The authority of this decision was recognized in Packer v. BirdSearch
-
deposit, an actual taking possession thereof, and the performance of the requisite amount of development work. Erhardt v. BoaroSearch
-
Black v. ElkhornSearch
-
St. Louis Smelting Co. v. KempSearch
-
Del Monte Mining Co. v. LastSearch
-
Chance Mining Co., 171 U. S. 55 , 171 U. S. 75 , etc. See also Jennison v. KirkSearch
-
Hammer v. GarfieldSearch
-
Clipper Mining Co. v. EliSearch
-
this legislative scheme, a mining claim may be abandoned by failure to do the required development work. Chambers v. HarringtonSearch
-
United States v. LeBrisSearch
-
Clairmont v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 385, c. 341, as was pointed out in United States v. KagamaSearch
-
for an Indian reservation, excepting crimes committed by the Indians. Reference is made to the cases of United States v. McBratneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial