Citation network
Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. Vs. Garrison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 12, 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
-
U.S. 251 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. GarrisonSearch
-
U.S. 251 (1915) Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. GarrisonSearch
-
property for public use, but the lawful exercise of a governmental power for the common good. West Chicago R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
among the states and subject to the exercise of such authority at some future time by Congress. Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
grant no right to the soil of the bed of navigable waters which is not subject to federal regulation. Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSearch
-
United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is an exercise of legislative power in respect to a matter wholly within its control, and is conclusive. United states v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
A review of the cases therefore is worthwhile. The power of Congress is expressed in a general way in Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
In Gibson v. UnitedSearch
-
Citing, among other cases, Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
and it was said that an appropriation for improvement was an exercise of the power of Congress. In Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
were not intended to qualify the power expressed, as is made manifest by subsequent cases. In Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. IllinoisSearch
-
being over a public highway. The latter and public waters were considered analogous. In West Chicago Railroad v. ChicagoSearch
-
Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
that Congress at some future time would exert its power. Page 237 U. S. 261 In Monongahela Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
to order it to be removed after notice and hearing. The Court declined to modify its holding in Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
and sustained the Secretary without much discussion. Hannibal Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
But the Union Bridge case was quoted from as correctly expressing the congressional power. Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSearch
-
navigable waters which is not subject to federal regulation. There was a repetition of this doctrine in United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
Water Co., 229 U. S. 69 . Yates v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
was not involved, nor passed on. And certainly no limitation was implied. The case was referred to in Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
See Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
the navigable streams within their territory, but subject to be superseded by the interference of Congress. Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Escanaba Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
recognize such distinction would be to limit the power when and where its exercise might be most needed. In Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
To support the distinction, Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 148 U. S. 312 , 148 U. S. 335 , as construed in Oyster Co. v. BriggsSearch
-
And it is declared that the cases referred to and Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
cases were adduced. How, then, it may be asked -- indeed, is asked -- shall we account for Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 148 U. S. 312 , as construed in Oyster Co. v. BriggsSearch
-
This language was quoted in Oyster Co. v. BriggsSearch
-
Bridge case, the principle it declares, and the cases it cites. Something is attempted to be made of Griffing v. IvesSearch
-
and we cannot enter into a consideration of what may be necessary for either purpose. It was said in United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
And in Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
harbor lines, and, necessarily, to require the removal of structures which project beyond them. Union Bridge Company v. UnitedSearch
-
purpose of restraining the exercise of that or any other power by which private property was taken. Monongahela Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
cannot recover for consequential damages resulting from making public improvements in navigable waters ( Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
water is inferior to the right of the government to deepen the channel in the interest of commerce. Lewis Oyster Co. v. BriggsSearch
-
damages when the government, in the interest of navigation, caused the water to run in another channel. United States v. ChandlerSearch
-
before the dam was built was expressly left open for future Page 237 U. S. 272 decision. Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial