Citation network
Work Vs. Louisiana
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 23, 1925
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. 250 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Work v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. 250 (1925) Work v. LouisianaSearch
-
further, a decree was entered awarding an injunction. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District. Fall v. LouisianaSearch
-
and overflowed lands may be allowed under either the special Act of 1849 or the general Act of 1850. See Louisiana v. GarfieldSearch
-
upon a misconception of the purpose of the suit. It is not one to establish the title of the state, as in Louisiana v. GarfieldSearch
-
supra, and New Mexico v. LaneSearch
-
U. S. 52 , nor one to quiet its title, as in Minnesota v. LaneSearch
-
by law and is an illegal act done under color of his office, he may be enjoined from carrying it into effect. Noble v. UnionSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Payne v. CentralSearch
-
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad v. FallSearch
-
Colorado v. TollSearch
-
States, even though it still retains the legal title to the lands, and it is not an indispensable party. Garfield v. GoldsbySearch
-
supra, pp. 234 U. S. 540 . Neither are the homestead entrymen indispensable parties. Lane v. WattsSearch
-
U. S. 537 , 234 U. S. 540 . Page 269 U. S. 255 In this latter respect, the cases of Litchfield v. TheSearch
-
to enjoin the Department from acting upon pending applications to prove preemption rights to the land, New Mexico v. LaneSearch
-
an entry made by one who had purchased and paid for the land and to enjoin the issuing of a patent to him, and Brady v. WorkSearch
-
patent under the Act of 1850. This has long been the settled construction of the Act of 1850. Rogers Locomotive Works v. EmigrantSearch
-
How. 120, 44 U. S. 131 , and Morton v. NebraskaSearch
-
even apart from the peculiar character of swamp and overflowed lands, is fortified by the decision in Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
General (the then Solicitor General) to the Secretary of the Interior in September, 1916, in which, citing Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
This conclusion is not in conflict with the later decisions relating to school lands in Mining Co. v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Mining Co., 102 U. S. 167 -- followed in Mullan v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 118 U. S. 271 -- and United States v. SweetSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Work v. LouisianaSearch
-
the Court of Appeals of the District. Fall v. LouisianaSearch
-
See Louisiana v. GarfieldSearch
-
Louisiana v. GarfieldSearch
-
and New Mexico v. LaneSearch
-
Minnesota v. LaneSearch
-
Noble v. UnionSearch
-
of Litchfield v. TheSearch
-
and Brady v. WorkSearch
-
Rogers Locomotive Works v. EmigrantSearch
-
and Morton v. NebraskaSearch
-
Mining Co. v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Mullan v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. SweetSearch
-
Lane v. WattsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial