Citation network
United States Vs. Cress
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 12, 1917
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. 316 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CressSearch
-
U.S. 316 (1917) United States v. CressSearch
-
their borders, both navigable and nonnavigable, and the ownership of the lands forming their beds and banks ( Barney v. KeokukSearch
-
for the regulation of commerce Page 243 U. S. 320 among the states and with foreign nations ( Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
Gibson v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Amendment against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation ( Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
manifestly inapplicable in a state so wholly remote from the sea -- but by the test of navigability in fact ( Thurman v. MorrisonSearch
-
Morrison v. ThurmanSearch
-
Goodin v. KentuckySearch
-
Murray v. PrestonSearch
-
Banks v. FrazierSearch
-
Ireland v. BowmanSearch
-
ownership of the beds of her streams, both navigable and nonnavigable, according to the common law rule ( Berry v. SnyderSearch
-
Miller v. HepburnSearch
-
Williamsburg Boom Co. v. SmithSearch
-
Wilson v. WatsonSearch
-
Robinson v. WellsSearch
-
Ky. 800, 804), with incidental rights to flow of the stream in its natural state ( Anderson v. CincinnatiSearch
-
is so amply illustrated by recent decisions of this Court, that a mere reference to the cases will suffice. Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. BriggsSearch
-
Willink v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 243 U. S. 322 contrary. An apparent but not a real exception is the New York case of Canal Appraisers v. PeopleSearch
-
been limited accordingly by later decisions of the court of last resort of that state. Commissioners of Canal Fund v. KempshallSearch
-
Child v. StarrSearch
-
Ft. Plain Bridge Co. v. SmithSearch
-
Smith v. RochesterSearch
-
Fulton L., H. & P. Co. v. StateSearch
-
not navigable in its natural state, appropriate to public use the private rights therein without compensation. Morgan v. KingSearch
-
Chenango Bridge Co. v. PaigeSearch
-
Stuart v. Clark'sSearch
-
Walker v. BoardSearch
-
Olive v. StateSearch
-
Rel. Ricks Water Co. v. ElkSearch
-
River Mill & Lumber Co., 107 Cal. 221, 224. And see Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. SpeechlySearch
-
Koopman v. BlodgettSearch
-
of state courts were cited as supporting this view, including some of those to which we have referred. Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
-
of state power, in the absence of action by Congress, although it was an interstate navigable water. Willson v. BlackSearch
-
without compensation, contrary to the applicable provision of the Constitution of Wisconsin. In United States v. LynahSearch
-
several other cases, the limitation of the public right to the natural state of the stream has been recognized. Packer v. BirdSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial