Citation network
Ex Parte Williams
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 21, 1928
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
-
certain of the legal questions presented were deemed similar to those involved in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. OsborneSearch
-
order of an administrative board or commission is challenged as contrary to the federal Constitution. Oklahoma Gas Co. v. RussellSearch
-
not extend or abridge any power or facility, does not determine any right or obligation. Compare Standard Scale Co. v. FarrellSearch
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LosSearch
-
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
F. 901. An assessment is directed by one officer of the state to another. Compare Great Northern Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
is vital. Determinations of an administrative board which are merely findings of fact are not reviewable. Keller v. PotomacSearch
-
difference between regulatory orders of administrative boards or commissions, which constitute action, compare Prentis v. AtlanticSearch
-
by writ of error, like a judgment sustaining the validity of a statute. Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Live Oak Water Users' Association v. RailroadSearch
-
Sultan Ry. & Timber Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
there has been discrimination in assessing property, can be reviewed only on certiorari. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. CitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
body, or, as in the case at bar, of both combined, which is alleged to have produced the discrimination. Baker v. DruesedowSearch
-
railroads or others, of whom action or nonaction is commanded, as it is by a statute. Compare Sultan Ry. & Timber Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
This appears to have been the uniform practice where the assessment was made by local officials. Union Pacific R. Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Keokuk Bridge Co. v. SalmSearch
-
Wilson v. IllinoisSearch
-
Callaway v. BohlerSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Gammill Lumber Co. v. BoardSearch
-
officials from levying a tax based on an assessment made by a state board and claimed to be discriminatory. Mudge v. McDougalSearch
-
Nevada-California Power Co. v. HamiltonSearch
-
City Ry. Co. v. BeardSearch
-
Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. EvelandSearch
-
Ohio Fuel Supply Co. v. PaxtonSearch
-
Fordson Coal Co. v. MaggardSearch
-
Connecting Gas Co. v. ImesSearch
-
F.2d 191, 195. On the other hand, in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. OsborneSearch
-
has been less uniform. The application for a temporary injunction was entertained by a single judge in Johnson v. WellsSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. GreeneSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. BosworthSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. HoweSearch
-
United Verde Extension Mining Co. v. HoweSearch
-
F.2d 209. In Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. KendallSearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. KendallSearch
-
U. S. 94 , the hearing was before three judges. See also Illinois Central R. Co. v. MississippiSearch
-
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. v. LewisSearch
-
Cumberland Pipe Line Co. v. LewisSearch
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. TaxSearch
-
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. OsborneSearch
-
Constitution. Oklahoma Gas Co. v. RussellSearch
-
Compare Standard Scale Co. v. FarrellSearch
-
Compare Great Northern Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Keller v. PotomacSearch
-
Prentis v. AtlanticSearch
-
Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial