Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Tempel Vs. United States

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

35 entries 5 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Harman Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1893
  2. United States Vs. Lynah US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1903
  3. St. Louis Vs. Rutz US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1891
  4. West Chicago Street R. Co. Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1906
  5. Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. Vs. Briggs US Supreme Court · May 26, 1913
  6. Tempel v. United
    Search
  7. States - 248 U.S. 121 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Tempel v. United
    Search
  8. States, 248 U.S. 121 (1918) Tempel v. United
    Search
  9. by him against the United States was not within the jurisdiction of the district court under the Tucker Act. Hill v. United
    Search
  10. States, 149 U. S. 53 , followed. United States v. Lynah
    Search
  11. U. S. 445 , and United States v. Cress
    Search
  12. for the United States, and the case comes here on writ of error. First. This is a suit, like United States v. Lynah
    Search
  13. the state owns the lands under a navigable river. Riparian owners own the fee to the middle of the stream, St. Louis v. Rutz
    Search
  14. make improvements therein for purposes of navigation, without the payment of compensation, West Chicago Street R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  15. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar
    Search
  16. Willink v. United
    Search
  17. in such permissible improvement is dredging for the purpose of deepening the channel. Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs
    Search
  18. and a remedy for claims sounding in tort is expressly denied. Bigby v. United
    Search
  19. Hijo v. United
    Search
  20. States, 194 U. S. 315 , 194 U. S. 323 . As stated in United States v. Lynah
    Search
  21. but the cause of action therefor, if any, is one sounding in tort, and for such the Tucker Act affords no remedy. Hill v. United
    Search
  22. strong resemblance Page 248 U. S. 131 to the case at bar, is conclusive on this point. See also Schillinger v. United
    Search
  23. United States has not conferred upon the district court jurisdiction to determine such a controversy. See Cramp & Sons v. Curtis
    Search
  24. character of the river and rights incidental thereto have been frequently considered by this Court. Transportation Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  25. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  26. Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois
    Search
  27. West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago
    Search
  28. U.S. Supreme Court Tempel v. United
    Search
  29. the Tucker Act. Hill v. United
    Search
  30. and United States v. Cress
    Search
  31. Bigby v. United
    Search
  32. Hill v. United
    Search
  33. Schillinger v. United
    Search
  34. See Cramp & Sons v. Curtis
    Search
  35. Court. Transportation Co. v. Chicago
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial