Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Griffin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 28, 1938

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

45 entries 3 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Hooker Vs. Knapp US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1912
    Relied / Followed
  2. United States Vs. Corrick US Supreme Court · May 18, 1936
  3. United States Vs. Baltimore US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  4. U.S. 226 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Griffin
    Search
  5. U.S. 226 (1938) United States v. Griffin
    Search
  6. we conclude that the District Court lacked jurisdiction of the cause, direct that the bill be dismissed. United States v. Corrick
    Search
  7. orders. Procter & Gamble Co. v. United
    Search
  8. that rule has been consistently followed in cases brought under the Urgent Deficiencies Act. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United
    Search
  9. Piedmont & Northern Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  10. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  11. U. S. 435 . Compare Delaware & Hudson Co. v. United
    Search
  12. United States v. Los
    Search
  13. In Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  14. the Government's guaranty of income for the period following relinquishment of federal control. And in United States v. Los
    Search
  15. of an action for the balance, as the claim asserted is one founded upon a law of Congress. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  16. States, 271 U. S. 603 . Compare United States v. New
    Search
  17. Stat. 505, have jurisdiction also of an action for additional compensation if an order is confiscatory. United States v. Great
    Search
  18. North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. United
    Search
  19. Jacobs v. United
    Search
  20. if the Commission is alleged to have acted in excess of its authority or otherwise illegally. Compare Powell v. United
    Search
  21. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  22. but under contracts voluntarily entered into with the Postmaster General. New York New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. United
    Search
  23. United States v. Illinois
    Search
  24. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United
    Search
  25. Compare United States v. Illinois
    Search
  26. Delaware & Hudson Co. v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Atlanta
    Search
  28. Chicago & E.I. Ry. v. United
    Search
  29. Nevada County N.G. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  30. Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  31. Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  32. Ct.Cls. 298. Compare Pere Marquette Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  33. New Jersey & N.Y. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  34. Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Griffin
    Search
  36. Procter & Gamble Co. v. United
    Search
  37. the Urgent Deficiencies Act. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. United
    Search
  38. Compare Delaware & Hudson Co. v. United
    Search
  39. of Congress. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  40. Compare United States v. New
    Search
  41. United States v. Great
    Search
  42. Compare Powell v. United
    Search
  43. the Postmaster General. New York New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. United
    Search
  44. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United
    Search
  45. Compare Pere Marquette Ry. Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial