Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chastleton Corp. Vs. Sinclair

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 21, 1924

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

37 entries 1 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Terrell Vs. Allison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  2. U.S. 543 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair
    Search
  3. U.S. 543 (1924) Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair
    Search
  4. The Act of October 22, 1919, regulating rents in the District of Columbia, and upheld as an emergency measure in Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  5. did not receive them. On motion, the bill was dismissed by the courts below, the Court of Appeals, in view of Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  6. at, a bill in equity is the natural and best way of settling the parties' rights. See, e.g., Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman
    Search
  7. U. S. 170 . The original Act of October 22, 1919, c. 80, Tit. II, 41 Stat. 297, considered in Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  8. it was continued until May 22, 1924. Act of May 22, 1922, c.197, 42 Stat. 543. We repeat what was stated in Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  9. of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared. 256 U.S. 256 U. S. 154 . Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court
    Search
  10. if the emergency ceases or the facts change, even though Page 264 U. S. 548 valid when passed. Perring v. United
    Search
  11. States, 232 U. S. 478 , 232 U. S. 486 -487. Missouri v. Chicago
    Search
  12. Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 241 U. S. 533 , 241 U. S. 539 -540. In Newton v. Consolidated
    Search
  13. Gas Co., 258 U. S. 165 , a statutory rate that had been sustained for earlier years in Willcox v. Consolidated
    Search
  14. not inquire how far this Court might go in deciding the question for itself, on the principles explained in Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  15. Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210 , 211 U. S. 227 . See Gardner v. Barney
    Search
  16. South Ottawa v. Perkins
    Search
  17. U. S. 260 , Jones v. United
    Search
  18. Travis v. Yale
    Search
  19. was pending in the Supreme Court of the District when this suit was begun, and still remains undisposed of. Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  20. Corporation and Hahn. The doctrine of lis pendens has no application to persons so situated. Terrell v. Allison
    Search
  21. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Long
    Search
  22. Steamship Co. v. Emigration
    Search
  23. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman
    Search
  24. U. S. 339 , 143 U. S. 345 . Compare Atherton Mills v. Johnston
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair
    Search
  26. Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  27. of Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  28. Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman
    Search
  29. Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court
    Search
  30. Perring v. United
    Search
  31. Missouri v. Chicago
    Search
  32. In Newton v. Consolidated
    Search
  33. Willcox v. Consolidated
    Search
  34. Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  35. See Gardner v. Barney
    Search
  36. Jones v. United
    Search
  37. Compare Atherton Mills v. Johnston
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial