Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ruddy Vs. Rossi

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 09, 1918

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

40 entries 9 linked 31 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcculloch Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  2. Buchser Vs. Buchser US Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1913
    Distinguished
  3. United States Vs. Gratiot US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1840
  4. Withers Vs. Buckley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  5. Shively Vs. Bowlby US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1894
  6. Mccune Vs. Essig US Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1905
    Relied / Followed
  7. Cooper Vs. Roberts US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
  8. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Townsend US Supreme Court · May 04, 1903
    Distinguished
  9. irvine Vs. Marshall US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  10. U.S. 104 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Ruddy v. Rossi
    Search
  11. U.S. 104 (1918) Ruddy v. Rossi
    Search
  12. This question undoubtedly presents difficulties which we are not disposed to minimize. In Wright v. Morgan
    Search
  13. And it is settled that Congress has plenary power to dispose of public lands. United States v. Gratiot
    Search
  14. upon the defendants' own property manifestly for the sole purpose of enclosing land of the United States. Camfield v. United
    Search
  15. interests of the United States under a title paramount to the state. On the other hand, it is said in Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  16. that such a power is repugnant to the Constitution. This case was referred to in Withers v. Buckley
    Search
  17. and both these cases were cited upon this point with approval in Ward v. Race
    Search
  18. Horse, 163 U. S. 504 , 163 U. S. 511 -512. See also Shively v. Bowlby
    Search
  19. U. S. 1 , 152 U. S. 27 . In Irvine v. Marshall
    Search
  20. and Page 248 U. S. 110 later in the decision there is cited a passage from Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  21. Justices who dissented and held that the territorial laws governed even them. It has been repeated ever since. McCune v. Essig
    Search
  22. States to restrict alienation of land within a state after it had conveyed the land in fee was left open in Wright v. Morgan
    Search
  23. the clearest expression would be necessary before it would be admitted that such a restriction was imposed. In Buchser v. Buchser
    Search
  24. the acquisition under the United States law being complete, that law had released its control. The statement in Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  25. was repeated. In Alabama v. Schmidt
    Search
  26. U. S. 168 , following Cooper v. Roberts
    Search
  27. imposed only an honorary obligation on the state. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Townsend
    Search
  28. S. 111 questions arise and by the other of which they are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter. United States v. Delaware
    Search
  29. was passed, the United States owned territories to which it could be applied with full scope. Irvine v. Marshall
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Ruddy v. Rossi
    Search
  31. In Wright v. Morgan
    Search
  32. of the United States. Camfield v. United
    Search
  33. Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  34. Ward v. Race
    Search
  35. In Irvine v. Marshall
    Search
  36. Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  37. Wright v. Morgan
    Search
  38. In Buchser v. Buchser
    Search
  39. In Alabama v. Schmidt
    Search
  40. United States v. Delaware
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial