Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chisholm Vs. Gilmer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 09, 1936

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

54 entries 4 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Bernheimer Vs. Converse US Supreme Court · May 27, 1907
  2. Christopher Vs. Norvell US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1906
  3. Southern Pacific Co. Vs. Denton US Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1892
  4. Dwight Vs. Merritt US Supreme Court · May 11, 1891
  5. U.S. 99 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Chisholm v. Gilmer
    Search
  6. U.S. 99 (1936) Chisholm v. Gilmer
    Search
  7. District Judge (McDowell, J.), announced in 1904, shows the remedy by motion then accepted by the bar. Leas & McVitty v. Merriman
    Search
  8. percent of those begun at Norfolk, and 14 percent of those begun at Alexandria. Eley v. Gamble
    Search
  9. by writ or by informal notice, is a question of the practice of the state or of its forms and modes of proceeding. Amy v. Watertown
    Search
  10. Iowa Central Ry. Co. v. Iowa
    Search
  11. The remedy by notice of motion has had repeated approval by the highest court of Virginia. Virginia Hot Springs Co. v. Schreck
    Search
  12. Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Fields
    Search
  13. Drew v. Anderson
    Search
  14. Call 51, 53. It is here sought to be applied not in equity or admiralty ( Coffey v. United
    Search
  15. S. 233 ), but in a common law cause, a quasi -contractual obligation being the source of liability. Shriver v. Woodbine
    Search
  16. Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett
    Search
  17. Whitford v. Clark
    Search
  18. by the statute. This is the view expressed more than thirty years ago by Judge McDowell in two cases ( Leas & McVitty v. Merriman
    Search
  19. supra, and Schofield v. Palmer
    Search
  20. by United States, 234 F. 443, 445. It is the view accepted by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Eley v. Gamble
    Search
  21. supra, and again in the case at hand. Cf. Wile v. Cohn
    Search
  22. in that mandate at war with the validity of a summary notice of motion signed and issued by the parties. Whitley v. Booker
    Search
  23. Kain v. Ashworth
    Search
  24. Mankin v. Aldridge
    Search
  25. Wood v. Kane
    Search
  26. have received a like construction. People v. Lee
    Search
  27. Gilmer v. Bird
    Search
  28. Curry v. Hinman
    Search
  29. McKenna v. Cooper
    Search
  30. Herndon v. Wakefield-Moore
    Search
  31. Hanna v. Russell
    Search
  32. Dunlap v. Bull
    Search
  33. Bailey v. Williams
    Search
  34. Whitney v. Blackburn
    Search
  35. State v. Superior
    Search
  36. Porter v. Vandercook
    Search
  37. were held to be applicable to the New York form of summons. Peaslee v. Haberstro
    Search
  38. Page 299 U. S. 105 Dwight v. Merritt
    Search
  39. F. 614. Insofar as these decisions and others following them ( United States v. Mitchell
    Search
  40. adopted by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The same objection was adequately answered in Eley v. Gamble
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Chisholm v. Gilmer
    Search
  42. Leas & McVitty v. Merriman
    Search
  43. Alexandria. Eley v. Gamble
    Search
  44. of Virginia. Virginia Hot Springs Co. v. Schreck
    Search
  45. Coffey v. United
    Search
  46. Shriver v. Woodbine
    Search
  47. and Schofield v. Palmer
    Search
  48. Eley v. Gamble
    Search
  49. Cf. Wile v. Cohn
    Search
  50. Whitley v. Booker
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial