Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wyoming Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 28, 1921

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

65 entries 7 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Johanson Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1903
  2. Shaw Vs. Kellogg US Supreme Court · May 02, 1898
  3. Daniels Vs. Wagner US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1915
  4. Weyerhaeuser Vs. Hoyt US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1911
  5. Riverside Oil Co. Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · May 18, 1903
  6. United States Vs. Schurz US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  7. Beecher Vs. Wetherby US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  8. Wyoming v. United
    Search
  9. States - 255 U.S. 489 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Wyoming v. United
    Search
  10. States, 255 U.S. 489 (1921) Wyoming v. United
    Search
  11. tract selected or a subsequent discovery that it contains mineral. P. 255 U. S. 497 . Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price
    Search
  12. County, 133 U. S. 496 , and Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray
    Search
  13. rendered as decree dismissing the bill on the merits, which the circuit court of appeals reversed ( United States v. Ridgely
    Search
  14. equal acreage from unappropriated nonmineral public lands outside the reservation and within the state. See California v. Deseret
    Search
  15. Payne v. New
    Search
  16. The conclusion which we deem plain in principle is fully sustained by prior adjudications. In Benson Mining Co. v. Alta
    Search
  17. In Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United
    Search
  18. In United States v. Iron
    Search
  19. Particularly in point is Shaw v. Kellogg
    Search
  20. In Leonard v. Lennox
    Search
  21. The last expression on this subject in this Court is found in Payne v. New
    Search
  22. that this right is not defeated or affected Page 255 U. S. 501 by a subsequent mineral discovery. California v. Poley
    Search
  23. Rice v. California
    Search
  24. Harnish v. Wallace
    Search
  25. Rea v. Stephenson
    Search
  26. Reid v. Lavallee
    Search
  27. Aspen Consolidated Mining Co. v. Williams
    Search
  28. Diamond Coal & Coke Co. v. United
    Search
  29. Kern Oil Co. v. Clarke
    Search
  30. selections. But afterwards, the Secretary, conceiving that the decisions of this Court in Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price
    Search
  31. after a full review, the changed ruling of the Secretary was disapproved and Daniels' contention sustained. Daniels v. Wagner
    Search
  32. that the contrary view found no justification in Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray
    Search
  33. and that the real authority and duty of the Secretary in dealing with such selections were pointed out in Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt
    Search
  34. power to approve lists of selections conferred on the Secretary was clearly pointed out in Wisconsin Central Railroad v. Price
    Search
  35. be taken so broadly is illustrated by the fact that it cited with approval the case of Saint Paul & Sioux City R. Co. v. Winona
    Search
  36. not such as could be entertained or investigated by the Land Department. That case and another ( Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock
    Search
  37. administration of its public land laws, and that jurisdiction cannot be taken away from it by the court. United States v. Schurz
    Search
  38. should the question properly arise in future litigation. The general expressions were relied upon in Daniels v. Wagner
    Search
  39. the Secretary, through an error of law, rejects the selection. And that ruling was reaffirmed and applied in Payne v. Central
    Search
  40. Pacific Ry. Co., ante, 255 U. S. 228 , and Payne v. New
    Search
  41. Central Pacific R. Co. v. Valentine
    Search
  42. the matter came before this Court and the construction and practice of the Land Department were sustained. Barden v. Northern
    Search
  43. rights under other land laws are to be tested by a different rule. And this is emphasized by the fact that, in Shaw v. Kellogg
    Search
  44. designed to aid the common schools of the states is to be construed liberally, rather than restrictively. Beecher v. Wetherby
    Search
  45. U. S. 509 the lieu selection was lawfully made it suffices to say, following the recent decision in Payne v. Central
    Search
  46. law in rejecting the selection, and that the district court rightly entered a decree for the defendants. See Cornelius v. Kessel
    Search
  47. United States v. Detroit
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Wyoming v. United
    Search
  49. Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price
    Search
  50. and Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial