Citation network
Logan Vs. Davis
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 11, 1914
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. 613 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Logan v. DavisSearch
-
U.S. 613 (1914) Logan v. DavisSearch
-
of acres having been patented to individuals under that interpretation, this Court will not now disturb it. Knepper v. SandsSearch
-
the purpose of the legislative body enacting it, and so held as to the Adjustment Act of 1887. United States v. SouthernSearch
-
is an honest one on his part, the ordinary rule respecting constructive notice being inapplicable. United States v. WinonaSearch
-
a contention to the contrary, found in one of the briefs, is dismissed as not justifying further comment. Gauthier v. MorrisonSearch
-
unless some of the objections urged against it on that score are well taken, Logan's title should be sustained. Vance v. BurbankSearch
-
Lee v. JohnsonSearch
-
rested with the Land Department, of which the Secretary of the Interior is the head, Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. GibbonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
L.D. 54, 71, and this Court impliedly, if not expressly, approved his action. Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sethman v. CliseSearch
-
Holton v. RutledgeSearch
-
Andrus v. BalchSearch
-
Briley v. BeachSearch
-
Neilsen v. CentralSearch
-
respect, and, if acted upon for a number of years, will not be disturbed except for very cogent reasons. United States v. MooreSearch
-
Hastings & Dakota Railroad Co. v. WhitneySearch
-
United States v. AlabamaSearch
-
Kindred v. UnionSearch
-
U. S. 596 . The remedial sections of the act were also considered by this Court in United States v. SouthernSearch
-
Counsel for Davis rely upon Knepper v. SandsSearch
-
or after the date of the act, and manifestly there was no purpose to overrule or qualify the decision in United States v. SouthernSearch
-
Pacific Railroad Co. supra, for it was not even mentioned. So, reading the opinion in Knepper v. SandsSearch
-
in good faith in the sense of the adjustment act, must be overruled, as was a like contention in United States v. WinonaSearch
-
This view of the purpose and meaning of the act was repeated and applied in Gertgens v. O'ConnorSearch
-
U. S. 237 , and United States v. ChicagoSearch
-
Secretary of the Interior was right in point of law, and as it was conclusive upon all questions of fact ( Gertgens v. O'ConnorSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Logan v. DavisSearch
-
United States v. SouthernSearch
-
United States v. WinonaSearch
-
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sethman v. CliseSearch
-
United States v. MooreSearch
-
and United States v. ChicagoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial