Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Adam Vs. Saenger

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 31, 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

57 entries 12 linked 45 unlinked
Show
  1. Sullivan Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1908
  2. American Railway Express Co. Vs. Levee US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1923
  3. Indiana Ex Rel. Anderson Vs. Brand US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1938
  4. Settlemier Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  5. Hanley Vs. Donoghue US Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1885
  6. Southern Pacific Co. Vs. Schuyler US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1913
  7. Norris Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1935
  8. Truax Vs. Corrigan US Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1921
  9. Davis Vs. Wechsler US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1923
  10. Yarborough Vs. Yarborough US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1933
  11. BaIn Peanut Co. Vs. Pinson US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1931
  12. Huntington Vs. Attrill US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1892
  13. U.S. 59 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court Adam v. Saenger
    Search
  14. U.S. 59 (1938) Adam v. Saenger
    Search
  15. Supreme Court for a writ of error was denied for want of jurisdiction. We granted certiorari, cf. Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson
    Search
  16. to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, it being the highest court of the state in which a judgment could be had. Bacon v. Texas
    Search
  17. San Antonio & A.P. Ry. Co. v. Wagner
    Search
  18. beyond the protection of the full faith and credit clause. To review these rulings, we brought the case here. Cf. Ward v. Love
    Search
  19. the cause and the parties is to be presumed unless disproved by extrinsic evidence, or by the record itself. Hanley v. Donoghue
    Search
  20. Knowles v. Logansport
    Search
  21. another state, the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it is open to judicial inquiry, Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry
    Search
  22. not litigated in the original suit, it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit founded upon the judgment. Thompson v. Whitman
    Search
  23. alleged will be considered in determining whether the law of another state differs from that of Texas. Porcheler v. Bronson
    Search
  24. Gill v. Everman
    Search
  25. National Bank of Commerce v. Kenney
    Search
  26. statute, the decision of the Texas court on that point, whether of law or of fact, is reviewable here. Stanley v. Schwalby
    Search
  27. Creswill v. Knights
    Search
  28. Ancient Egyptian Order v. Michaux
    Search
  29. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. North
    Search
  30. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  31. Ward v. Love
    Search
  32. Patterson v. Alabama
    Search
  33. of the local courts, but upon the law of another state, as readily determined here as in a state court. Huntington v. Attrill
    Search
  34. independent suit in which a final judgment could be rendered without awaiting a decision in the original suit. Farar v. Steenbergh
    Search
  35. the attitude of an independent suit, and requires service of the cross-action upon the cross-defendant. Harris v. Schlinke
    Search
  36. hold that a cross-complaint may be served on the attorney of one who is already a party to the original action. Farrar v. Steenbergh
    Search
  37. Wood v. Johnston
    Search
  38. Ritter v. Braash
    Search
  39. on the attorney has been definitely answered in the negative by the Supreme Court of California, which, in Farrar v. Steenbergh
    Search
  40. taken upon default in a cross-action begun by service of the cross-complaint on the plaintiff's attorney. Ritter v. Braash
    Search
  41. It is the price which the state may exact as the condition of opening its courts to the plaintiff. Young Company v. McNeal-Edwards
    Search
  42. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Lindell
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Adam v. Saenger
    Search
  44. Bacon v. Texas
    Search
  45. Cf. Ward v. Love
    Search
  46. Anderson v. Brand
    Search
  47. Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry
    Search
  48. Thompson v. Whitman
    Search
  49. of Texas. Porcheler v. Bronson
    Search
  50. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. North
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial