Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Williams Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1933

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

77 entries 5 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. Cohens Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  2. United States Vs. O'Grady US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  3. Miles Vs. Graham US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1925
  4. Webster Vs. Fall US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1925
  5. Holmes Vs. Jennison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1840
  6. Williams v. United
    Search
  7. States - 289 U.S. 553 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. United
    Search
  8. States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) Williams v. United
    Search
  9. tenure of office and compensation. Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438 . Expressions in United States v. Klein
    Search
  10. Expressions in Minnesota v. Hitchcock
    Search
  11. U. S. 373 , and Kansas v. United
    Search
  12. framed, the proposition that Art. III intended to include suits against the United States is inadmissible. Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  13. Dall. 419, and Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  14. American Ins. Co. v. Canter
    Search
  15. of testing the constitutionality of a reduction of his official salary. Cf. the preceding report of O'Donoghue v. United
    Search
  16. per annum under a ruling of the Comptroller General of the United States. Compare O'Donoghue v. United
    Search
  17. Because of that provision, it was held in Gordon v. United
    Search
  18. Congress may authorize an appeal to this Court from a final judgment or decree of the Court of Claims, United States v. Jones
    Search
  19. Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United
    Search
  20. the judgment of this Court rendered on such appeal constitutes a final determination of the matter. United States v. O'Grady
    Search
  21. upon constitutional courts, is plainly apparent from the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in American Insurance Co. v. Canter
    Search
  22. during this long period of time, and their authority to do so must be regarded as conclusively established. Levin v. United
    Search
  23. in several cases has expressed, more or less irrelevantly, its opinion in the affirmative. Thus, in United States v. Klein
    Search
  24. that such court was thus constituted one of those inferior courts which Congress authorizes. In United States v. Union
    Search
  25. Claims, and vested each of them with a defined portion of the judicial power found in the Constitution. In Minnesota v. Hitchcock
    Search
  26. Kansas v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Louisiana
    Search
  28. and the expressions referred to were clearly obiter dicta, which, as said by Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  29. dispenses with trial by jury, a provision which was distinctly upheld in spite of the Seventh Amendment in McElrath v. United
    Search
  30. In Gordon v. United
    Search
  31. on that basis, distinctly recognized that Congress may require it to give advisory decisions. And, in United States v. Klein
    Search
  32. In the present case, the court below regarded the recent decision in Miles v. Graham
    Search
  33. cited and holding that the Court of Claims is a constitutional, rather than a legislative, court. But, in this, Miles v. Graham
    Search
  34. taken in this case as disturbing the earlier rulings or attributing to the Court of Claims a changed status. Webster v. Fall
    Search
  35. That court was said to be a constitutional court in United States v. Union
    Search
  36. Page 289 U. S. 572 In Minnesota v. Hitchcock
    Search
  37. cases, and its omission in others, cannot be regarded as accidental under the rule stated in an early case, Holmes v. Jennison
    Search
  38. Myers v. United
    Search
  39. in some instances and its omission in others is commented upon by Mr. Justice Story in Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  40. U. S. 574 such, of great value in expounding the meaning of the judicial article of that instrument. Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  41. Borrs v. Preston
    Search
  42. Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  43. And in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  44. as to whether this authorized a suit against a state by a citizen of another state was considered in Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  45. by a citizen of that state to recover the amount of certain unpaid coupons annexed to an issue of state bonds. Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  46. could not be sued without its consent. The case then came to this Court on error, and the judgment was affirmed. Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  47. foreign state. But, it said, such a result would be no less startling and unexpected than was the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  48. Mr. Justice Iredell, which was characterized as able, was distinctly approved. As opposed to the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  49. clearly right, and that the views expressed by them applied as well to the then pending case as to that of Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  50. a state and those brought against the United States. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is fully discussed in Hans v. Louisiana
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial