Citation network
irwIn Vs. Wright
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 20, 1922
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
-
U.S. 219 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
U.S. 219 (1922) Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
statutory provision for continuing it against his successor, abates upon his death or retirement from office. Pullman v. CroomSearch
-
U. S. 571 . In United States ex rel. Bernardin v. ButterworthSearch
-
of United States officers who have been sued may be substituted for them upon proper showing. In Caledonian Coal Co. v. BakerSearch
-
substitution of their successors, does not apply when they constitute a Board, having a continuing existence. Marshall v. DyeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the bill, an injunction against the Board of Supervisors alone will not aid the plaintiff. Warner Valley Stock Co. v. SmithSearch
-
lands and property belonging to the United States or reserved for its use were exempted from taxation. Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSearch
-
Wisconsin Railroad Co. v. PriceSearch
-
which we shall presently consider) and in cases in which express authority to tax is given in the statute. Bothwell v. BinghamSearch
-
Sargent v. HerrickSearch
-
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. MyersSearch
-
Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. PriceSearch
-
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. TraillSearch
-
Colorado Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
Railway Co. v. McShaneSearch
-
Railway Co. v. PrescottSearch
-
officers, from taxing lands or the interests of settlers therein in the Boise reclamation project. United States v. CanyonSearch
-
it should be land of the entrymen, and, of course, it became taxable as such. Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
With the second ruling, in which the district court was sustained by a decision of the Supreme Court of Idaho, Cheney v. MinidokaSearch
-
in the lands Page 258 U. S. 231 in the same category as mining claims, which have always been taxable. Elder v. WoodSearch
-
this right and interest never has been dependent for its enjoyment on patent, and so it has been taxable. Forbes v. GraceySearch
-
Mudgett v. DubuqueSearch
-
the government has thus framed its land policy to protect and encourage the homesteader is shown further in Ruddy v. RossiSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
Pullman v. CroomSearch
-
Bernardin v. ButterworthSearch
-
In Caledonian Coal Co. v. BakerSearch
-
Bothwell v. BinghamSearch
-
United States v. CanyonSearch
-
Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
of the Supreme Court of Idaho, Cheney v. MinidokaSearch
-
Elder v. WoodSearch
-
Mudgett v. DubuqueSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial