Citation network
Christianson Vs. King County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 13, 1915
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
-
Christianson v. KingSearch
-
County - 239 U.S. 356 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Christianson v. KingSearch
-
County, 239 U.S. 356 (1915) Christianson v. KingSearch
-
of Amendments v. andSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the territorial legislature. In this view, the decision of the circuit court of appeals is not final. Vicksburg v. HensonSearch
-
territorial legislature could not provide for escheat unless such provision was within the granted authority. Sere v. PitotSearch
-
American Ins. Co. v. CanterSearch
-
National Bank v. YanktonSearch
-
and there was no interference with the exclusive authority of Congress in dealing with the public domain. Carroll v. SaffordSearch
-
U. S. 151 , 117 U. S. 164 -165 Page 239 U. S. 365 Crane v. ReederSearch
-
Oury v. GoodwinSearch
-
Topeka Co. v. McPhersonSearch
-
except as otherwise provided, included all those subjects upon which legislatures had been accustomed to act. Maynard v. HillSearch
-
Walker v. NewSearch
-
to the territory to legislate with respect to the devolution of real property on the death of the owner. Thus, in Cope v. CopeSearch
-
the power of the territorial legislature was apparently as plenary as that the legislature of a state. Maynard v. HillSearch
-
to enact legislation of this character would be contrary to the principles declared in the case of the Mormon Church v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., p. 136 U. S. 47 . Our attention is also directed to statements in the opinions in Williams v. WilsonSearch
-
Martin & Yerger 248, 252, and Etheridge v. DoeSearch
-
but neither of these cases involved the question of the validity of territorial legislation for escheat. In Territory v. LeeSearch
-
repugnant to the authority and action of Congress with respect to the disposition of the public lands. See also King v. WareSearch
-
Ia. 97. On the other hand, in Crane v. ReederSearch
-
considered with regard to the Territory of Washington, the authority of the legislature has been upheld. Pacific Bank v. HannahSearch
-
Territory v. KleeSearch
-
have jurisdiction and the procedure for determining whether the rule was applicable in a particular case. Hamilton v. BrownSearch
-
et seq. See Stewart v. LohrSearch
-
Balch v. SmithSearch
-
Hazelton v. BogardusSearch
-
Alaska Banking Co. v. NoyesSearch
-
McDowell v. BeckhamSearch
-
Krohn v. HirschSearch
-
in a proper sense, of an attempt to determine the title of third persons -- that is, of adverse claimants. Stewart v. LohrSearch
-
F., p. 799, citing In re Sullivan's Estate, 48 Wash. 631. See also Helm v. JohnsonSearch
-
Magee v. BigSearch
-
Simmons v. SaulSearch
-
Pick v. StrongSearch
-
Morgan v. LockeSearch
-
Riley v. McCordSearch
-
Alaska Banking & Safe Deposit Co. v. NoyesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial