Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

King Manufacturing Co. Vs. Augusta

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 14, 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

67 entries 5 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Ford Vs. Surget US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  2. Stevens Vs. Griffith US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1884
  3. Zucht Vs. King US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1922
    Relied / Followed
  4. Appleby Vs. Delaney US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1926
  5. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Vs. Goldsboro US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1914
    Relied / Followed
  6. U.S. 100 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court King Manufacturing Co. v. Augusta
    Search
  7. U.S. 100 (1928) King Manufacturing Company v. City
    Search
  8. Standard Scale Co. v. Farrell
    Search
  9. we deem relevant, it is well to refer to some which, although cited as in point, appear to us not to be so. Weston v. Charleston
    Search
  10. Pet. 449, and Home Insurance Co. v. Augusta
    Search
  11. and (b) that a right claimed under the Constitution was denied. There was no negation of other grounds. Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  12. contested, was sustained in an opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan. He quoted with approval the above extract from Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  13. given effect to an enactment of the Confederate States. This Court there said, after reciting its ruling in Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  14. New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. and after quoting with approval the statement Page 277 U. S. 110 in Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  16. In North American Storage Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  17. in the jurisdictional provisions by the decisions in Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  18. and Stevens v. Griffith
    Search
  19. with those cases, but has been approvingly followed and applied in latter cases. In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro
    Search
  20. which confers jurisdiction on this Court. Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  21. Reinman v. Little
    Search
  22. which confers jurisdiction upon this Court. Atlantic Coast Line v. Goldsboro
    Search
  23. sustained by the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro
    Search
  24. Further applying the ruling in Williams v. Bruffy
    Search
  25. Lake Erie & Western R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  26. Improvement Co. v. Public
    Search
  27. U. S. 113 U.S. 679, 262 U. S. 683 , specifically followed and applied in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Department
    Search
  28. Live Oak Water Users' Assn. v. Railroad
    Search
  29. Citing New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana
    Search
  30. order, legislative in nature, of a state commission has been taken in other related cases. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  31. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Garrett
    Search
  32. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell
    Search
  33. Appleby v. New
    Search
  34. rate should continue indefinitely. The city may be under a duty to supply the power at a reasonable rate ( see Millers v. Augusta
    Search
  35. Followed in Sprout v. South
    Search
  36. Bend and Nectow v. Cambridge
    Search
  37. validity of a municipal ordinance alleged to be repugnant to the federal Constitution was first invoked in Weston v. City
    Search
  38. In 1876, the subject was carefully reconsidered in Home Insurance Co. v. City
    Search
  39. a municipal ordinance could be properly so described. The second of the categories mentioned in Home Insurance Co. v. City
    Search
  40. has held that a municipal ordinance is not a statute within the meaning of that section. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. City
    Search
  41. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City
    Search
  42. Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. City
    Search
  43. Calhoun v. City
    Search
  44. City of Des Moines v. Des
    Search
  45. City of Dallas v. Dallas
    Search
  46. Telephone Co., 272 F. 410. See also Land Development Co. v. City
    Search
  47. of an authority exercised under the United States had been challenged was indicated in Maricopa & Phoenix R. Co. v. Arizona
    Search
  48. U. S. 347 , 156 U. S. 350 -351, and Parsons v. District
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court King Manufacturing Co. v. Augusta
    Search
  50. King Manufacturing Company v. City
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial