Citation network
Russell Vs. Sebastian
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 06, 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. 195 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Russell v. SebastianSearch
-
U.S. 195 (1914) Russell v. SebastianSearch
-
exclusive franchise. The city may not only authorize others to compete, but it may compete itself. Madera Water Works v. MaderaSearch
-
state legislation impairing the obligation of contracts, it is the duty of this Court to determine for itself. Douglas v. KentuckySearch
-
Northern Pacific Railway v. DuluthSearch
-
Grand Trunk Western Railway v. SouthSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. CitySearch
-
of Article XI of the Constitution of 1879 was decided by the Supreme Court of California in People v. StephensSearch
-
Cal. 209, shortly after that constitution was adopted. See also Pereria v. WallaceSearch
-
Denninger v. Recorder'sSearch
-
Stockton Gas & Electric Co. v. SanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
South Pasadena v. PasadenaSearch
-
became as effective as if it had been made specially to the accepting individual or corporation. See Stanislaus County v. SanSearch
-
In People v. StephensSearch
-
As it was succinctly stated in Clark v. LosSearch
-
the federal Constitution, is not open to dispute in view of the repeated decisions of this Court. New Orleans Gas Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
New Orleans Water Works Co. v. RiversSearch
-
Walla Walla v. WallaSearch
-
Louisville v. CumberlandSearch
-
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. SouthSearch
-
Owensboro v. CumberlandSearch
-
Boise Artesian Water Co. v. BoiseSearch
-
that ambiguities are to be resolved against the grantee. Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
-
Detroit Citizens' Ry. Co. v. DetroitSearch
-
Pacific R. Co. v. LitchfieldSearch
-
the withholding of that which it satisfactorily appears the grant was intended to convey. Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. BarneySearch
-
Minneapolis v. StreetSearch
-
competition in public service, and it will not be questioned that it must receive, as the state court said in People v. StephensSearch
-
to use the streets for laying the necessary Page 233 U. S. 207 distributing pipes. Boise Water Co. v. BoiseSearch
-
of permitting them to be made by the legislature, or by municipalities acting under legislative authority. People v. StephensSearch
-
foot, as pipes were laid, but as an entirety, in accordance with its purpose and express language. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. SouthSearch
-
or corporation had changed its position beyond recall, we cannot doubt that the offer was accepted. City Railway Co. v. Citizens'Search
-
Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. SouthSearch
-
in response to the state's offer was the obligation to provide facilities that were reasonably adequate. Lumbard v. StearnsSearch
-
Cumberland Tel. Co. v. KellySearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. NorthSearch
-
Rel. Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. DeehanSearch
-
the granted privilege to install the means of service, were correlative. In People ex Rel. Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. DeehanSearch
-
supra (approved in Illinois Central R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Russell v. SebastianSearch
-
Douglas v. KentuckySearch
-
People v. StephensSearch
-
Pereria v. WallaceSearch
-
See Stanislaus County v. SanSearch
-
Clark v. LosSearch
-
Court. New Orleans Gas Co. v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial