Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ward Vs. Love County

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 25, 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

39 entries 7 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Gleason Vs. Wood US Supreme Court · May 13, 1912
  2. Choate Vs. Trapp US Supreme Court · May 13, 1912
  3. English Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 13, 1912
  4. LeaThe Vs. Thomas US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1907
  5. Huntington Vs. Attrill US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1892
  6. Carter Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1900
  7. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. Vs. Stranahan US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1909
  8. Ward v. Love
    Search
  9. County - 253 U.S. 17 (1920) U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Love
    Search
  10. County, 253 U.S. 17 (1920) Ward v. Board
    Search
  11. which they were defendants, were being litigated in behalf of all such allottees, to maintain the exemption ( Choate v. Trapp
    Search
  12. A judgment for the claimants followed, and this was reversed by the supreme court. Board of Commr's of Love County v. Ward
    Search
  13. state courts, being of opinion that the exemption had been repealed by Congress, sustained the power to tax. English v. Richardson
    Search
  14. authorities in Oklahoma, and that the state courts had erred in refusing to enjoin them from taxing the lands. Choate v. Trapp
    Search
  15. not elapsed since the date of the patents, it is certain that the lands were nontaxable. This was settled in Choate v. Trapp
    Search
  16. putting forward nonfederal grounds of decision that were without any fair or substantial support. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  17. Vandalia R. Co. v. South
    Search
  18. Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Shannon
    Search
  19. Creswill v. Knights
    Search
  20. Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers'
    Search
  21. Boyd v. Thayer
    Search
  22. may be thus put forward successfully, our power to review easily may be avoided. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co. v. Indiana
    Search
  23. reasonably could not have regarded it otherwise, much less the Indian claimants. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. O'Connor
    Search
  24. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  25. Swift Co. v. United
    Search
  26. Robertson v. Frank
    Search
  27. U. S. 320 , 214 U. S. 329 . The county places some reliance on Lamborn v. County
    Search
  28. Commissioners, 97 U. S. 181 , and Railroad v. Commissioners
    Search
  29. Marsh v. Fulton
    Search
  30. City of Louisiana v. Wood
    Search
  31. Chapman v. County
    Search
  32. to others whose rights it knew were disputed and were no better than its own. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. O'Connor
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Love
    Search
  34. Ward v. Board
    Search
  35. Board of Commr's of Love County v. Ward
    Search
  36. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co. v. Indiana
    Search
  37. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. O'Connor
    Search
  38. Lamborn v. County
    Search
  39. and Railroad v. Commissioners
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial