Citation network
WisconsIn Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1929
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. 367 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 367 (1929) Wisconsin v. IllinoisSearch
-
an existing permit from the Secretary of War or any that might be issued by him according to law ( Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
by Judge Carpenter in the case, which was affirmed by this Court in January, 1925. Sanitary District of Chicago v. UnitedSearch
-
and we concur with the master in his conclusion that they are met completely by our previous decisions. Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
Sanitary District of Chicago v. UnitedSearch
-
New York v. NewSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. WestSearch
-
Georgia v. TennesseeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
War issued by him March 3, 1925, to the Sanitary District shortly after the decree of this Court in Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
was intended to make mere state authorization inadequate. Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BellinghamSearch
-
in navigable waters within a state, and both state and federal approval were made necessary in such case. Cummings v. ChicagoSearch
-
a special authorization of Congress. We do not think this was intended. The Supreme Court of Maine, in Maine Water Co. v. KnickerbockerSearch
-
for nearly 30 years. Nothing is more convincing in interpretation of a doubtful or ambiguous statute. United States v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Swendig v. WashingtonSearch
-
Kern River Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BurlingtonSearch
-
question as this that is naturally within the executive function that can be deputed by Congress. Southern Pacific Co. v. OlympianSearch
-
Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Monongahela Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Louisville Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
positive relation to the control of navigation and not otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution, United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
which has no real or substantial relation to the control of navigation or appropriateness to that end. United States v. RiverSearch
-
Port of Seattle v. OregonSearch
-
diverted water is used for the development of power, the use is merely incidental. This Court, in Sanitary District v. UnitedSearch
-
for the time being a sufficient diversion to avoid interference with navigation in the port of Chicago. See New York v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. IllinoisSearch
-
Missouri v. IllinoisSearch
-
Maine Water Co. v. KnickerbockerSearch
-
United States v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Congress. Southern Pacific Co. v. OlympianSearch
-
the Constitution, United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
United States v. RiverSearch
-
of Chicago. See New York v. NewSearch
-
Kansas v. ColoradoSearch
-
Wyoming v. ColoradoSearch
-
North Dakota v. MinnesotaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial