Citation network
Ex Parte Peterson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1920
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
-
facts out of which liability is alleged to arise, even when the items to which they relate remain in dispute. See Fair v. ManhattanSearch
-
conclusions of fact therein set forth. The report, being evidence sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof ( Wyman v. WhicherSearch
-
does not require that old forms of practice and procedure be retained. Walker v. NewSearch
-
Mexico & Southern Pacific R., 165 U. S. 593 , 165 U. S. 596 . Compare Twining v. NewSearch
-
object of each is to concentrate the controversy upon the questions which should control the result. United States v. GilmoreSearch
-
Tucker v. UnitedSearch
-
require, with a view to formulating the issues, an oath by each party to the facts relied upon. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
for exploring in advance the evidence which the adversary purposes to introduce before the jury. Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
not unconstitutional because it endows an official act or finding with a presumption of regularity or of verity. Marx v. HanthornSearch
-
U. S. 437 . In Meeker & Co. v. LehighSearch
-
stated in suits bought to enforce reparation awards, does not infringe upon the right of trial by jury. See also Mills v. LehighSearch
-
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. JonesSearch
-
Ill. 361, 382. In the Meeker case, this Court relied especially upon Holmes v. HuntSearch
-
in any way the right of trial by jury was the conclusion reached in 1902 in the District of Massachusetts in Primrose v. FennoSearch
-
powers here conferred. The practice there established has been followed in the Southern District of New York, Vermeule v. ReillySearch
-
F. 226, and in the Eastern District of Tennessee, United States v. WellsSearch
-
themselves with appropriate instruments required for the performance of their duties. Compare Stockbridge Iron Co. v. ConeSearch
-
and make finding thereon are among the purposes for which such aids to the judges have been appointed. Kimberly v. ArmsSearch
-
or commissioner than for the judge to undertake to perform the task himself. Heirs of P. E. Dubourg de St. Colombe v. UnitedSearch
-
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 167 , 176 U. S. 180 . Of the appointment made in Field v. HollandSearch
-
And in Railroad Co. v. SwaseySearch
-
and Page 253 U. S. 314 of directing their attention to the matters actually in issue. United States v. ReadingSearch
-
with power to determine issues is impossible in the federal courts because of the Seventh Amendment, United States v. RathboneSearch
-
and make findings thereon has long been recognized as an appropriate proceeding in an action at law. Heckers v. FowlerSearch
-
and which, in the Southern District of New York, had been followed not only in equity, American Diamond Drill Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
Brickill v. MayorSearch
-
Hohorst v. Hamburg-AmericanSearch
-
Rogers v. BrownSearch
-
of court in Page 253 U. S. 316 several of the circuits taxable as costs against the defeated party, Hake v. BrownSearch
-
F. 734. Compare Kelly v. SpringfieldSearch
-
Tesla Electric Co. v. ScottSearch
-
F. 524. As early as 1843, Mr. Justice Story, sitting at circuit in Whipple v. CumberlandSearch
-
incurred under order of the court, to make possible or to facilitate its consideration of the case. Stallo v. WagnerSearch
-
New Hampshire Land Co. v. TiltonSearch
-
F. 764. But see Bridges v. SheldonSearch
-
usage long continued and confirmed by implication from provisions in many statutes. Mr. Justice Woodbury, in Hathaway v. RoachSearch
-
The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 377. In Hathaway v. RoachSearch
-
any, governing in this respect the courts of New York would therefore be followed in the federal courts. See Huntress v. TownSearch
-
U. S. 318 that, in actions at law, the prevailing party is entitled to costs as of right ( compare United States v. SchurtzSearch
-
In Whipple v. CumberlandSearch
-
ordered by the court was imposed by it equally on the two parties, and the same disposition was made in Primrose v. FennoSearch
-
where the auditor had been appointed at the instance of the court without objection by either party. But, in Houlihan v. CorporationSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial