Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Massachusetts Vs. Missouri

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 06, 1939

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

31 entries 4 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Graves Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · May 29, 1939
  2. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Johnson Vs. Cook US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  3. Cohens Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  4. Curry Vs. Mccanless US Supreme Court · May 29, 1939
  5. U.S. 1 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Massachusetts v. Missouri
    Search
  6. U.S. 1 (1939) Massachusetts v. Missouri
    Search
  7. law or fact with the decision of the other -- does not present a justiciable controversy between the two States. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  8. of the character of the party, and an original suit might be instituted in any of the federal courts. Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  9. enforcement according to the accepted principles of the common law or equity systems of jurisprudence. Florida v. Mellon
    Search
  10. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  11. each State without conflict in point of Page 308 U. S. 16 fact or law with the decision of the other. Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  12. U. S. 383 . The question is thus a different one from that presented in Texas v. Florida
    Search
  13. the several States in independent suits, enough of the estate would be absorbed to deprive some its lawful tax. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  14. statute is unavailing, as Massachusetts may not invoke our jurisdiction for the benefit of such individuals. Oklahoma v. Atchison
    Search
  15. to give such relief, there must still be a controversy in the constitutional sense ( Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth
    Search
  16. alleged to be due from citizens of other States is necessary for the State's protection. In Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook
    Search
  17. it. We have observed that the broad statement that a court having jurisdiction must exercise it ( See Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  18. exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them where there is no want of another suitable forum. Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson
    Search
  19. Rogers v. Guaranty
    Search
  20. applicable to particular classes of cases. Rogers v. Guaranty
    Search
  21. remedy. Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article III merely distributes the jurisdiction conferred by clause one. Louisiana v. Texas
    Search
  22. Monaco v. Mississippi
    Search
  23. U.S. Supreme Court Massachusetts v. Missouri
    Search
  24. States. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  25. Florida v. Mellon
    Search
  26. Oklahoma v. Atchison
    Search
  27. Johnson v. Cook
    Search
  28. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth
    Search
  29. See Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  30. Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson
    Search
  31. Louisiana v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial