Citation network
Pennsylvania Vs. Williams
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 04, 1935
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. 176 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. WilliamsSearch
-
U.S. 176 (1935) Pennsylvania v. WilliamsSearch
-
the rival claims of a state and a federal court to jurisdiction over the same subject matter and property, see Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
allegations stand unchallenged, See Philadelphia, Wilmington Page 294 U. S. 181 & Baltimore R. Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
U. S. 271 , and prays relief which a federal court of equity is competent to give, see Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
for the appointment of receivers, such notice was not prerequisite to the exercise of its jurisdiction. See Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
In re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 90 . Cf. Marin v. AugedahlSearch
-
by a shareholder of the insolvent corporation rather than by its judgment creditor, see Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. RiggsSearch
-
that, under Pennsylvania law, the present shareholder has the status of a creditor, see Nice Ball Bearing Co. v. MortgageSearch
-
of the District Court as a federal court, but only to the propriety of its action as a court of equity. See Smith v. McKaySearch
-
Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
-
Twist v. PrairieSearch
-
objection that the court is without jurisdiction as a federal court, see Mansfield, Cold Water & Lake Michigan Ry. Co. v. SwanSearch
-
U. S. 382 , the parties may waive their objections to the equity jurisdiction by consent, Hollins v. BrierfieldSearch
-
Railway Receivership, supra, 208 U. S. 109 -110, or by failure to take it seasonably, Brown, Bonnell & Co. v. LakeSearch
-
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
court should take sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings, despite the waiver by the parties, compare Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
invested with authority to hear and make disposition of the cause, which is not open to collateral attack, see Bryan v. KennettSearch
-
Johnson v. ManhattanSearch
-
U. S. 479 , 289 U. S. 496 , or subject to diminution or control by state statutes, See United States v. HowlandSearch
-
Mason v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 557 . Error in the exercise of that jurisdiction can be remedied only by appeal. See Smith v. McKaySearch
-
of the court first acquiring jurisdiction for relinquishing its jurisdiction in favor of the other. Compare McClellan v. CarlandSearch
-
Page 294 U. S. 184 Hyde v. StoneSearch
-
In re Chetwod, 165 U. S. 443 , 165 U. S. 460 , with Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
Rogers v. GuarantySearch
-
Kansas City Pipe Line Co. v. FidelitySearch
-
First National Bank of Memphis v. HoruffSearch
-
and of liquidating them by an adequate procedure when insolvent, asks to proceed with the liquidation. See Amos v. TrustSearch
-
private rights when the exercise of its jurisdiction would be prejudicial to the public interest, see Greathouse v. DernSearch
-
which will safeguard the public interest and secure substantial justice to the complainant, see Harrisonville v. W.SSearch
-
with proper regard for the rightful independence of state governments in carrying out their domestic policy. Fenner v. BoykinSearch
-
U. S. 521 , 284 U. S. 525 . Cf. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
would involve control of or interference with the internal affairs of a domestic corporation of the state. See Rogers v. GuarantySearch
-
Trust Company, supra, 288 U. S. 130 -131. Compare Burnrite Coal Briquette Co. v. RiggsSearch
-
Canada Malting Co., Ltd. v. PatersonSearch
-
of jurisdiction involves an unnecessary interference by injunction with the lawful action of state officers. Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
of promptly discharging the receivers and settling their accounts, after which the suit will be dismissed. See Harkin v. BrundageSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial