Citation network
West Vs. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 13, 1940
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
-
West v. AmericanSearch
-
Tel. & Tel. Co. - 311 U.S. 223 (1940) U.S. Supreme Court West v. AmericanSearch
-
Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223 (1940) West v. AmericanSearch
-
this case, in which jurisdiction rests exclusively on diversity of citizenship, declined to follow the ruling in West v. AmericanSearch
-
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and of our decision in Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
and that both had misconstrued and misapplied an earlier decision of the court below in American Steel Foundries v. HuntSearch
-
demand is prerequisite to suit in the case of a remainderman is the decision of the state court of appeals in West v. AmericanSearch
-
define the nature and extent of petitioners' right. See Russell v. ToddSearch
-
as well as those prescribed by statute. Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
and persuasive indication that its pronouncement will be modified, limited or restricted. See Wichita Royalty Co. v. CitySearch
-
and however much the state rule may have departed from prior decisions of the federal courts. See Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise. Six Companies of California v. JointSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ante, p. 311 U. S. 169 . Cf. Graham v. White-PhillipsSearch
-
Wichita Royalty Co. v. CitySearch
-
against the petitioner, may hold itself free to modify or reject the ruling thus announced. Village of Brewster v. HillSearch
-
demand was made, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until one or the other of those dates. See Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
Ohio G.C., see Cleveland & M. Railroad Co. v. RobbinsSearch
-
in making it, citing Keither v. FosterSearch
-
Cf. Stearns v. HibbenSearch
-
In Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
In Douglas v. CorrySearch
-
Townsend v. EichelbergerSearch
-
until after the expiration of the additional limitation period after the demand was made or presumed as in Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
Douglas v. CorrySearch
-
Stearns v. HibbenSearch
-
N.E. 1157. There is here Page 311 U. S. 242 no place for any presumption of demand, as in Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
was held a bar in both. Though the action was in equity, an action at law might have been maintained ( Stearns v. HibbenSearch
-
justifying their delay in making demand ( Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court West v. AmericanSearch
-
American Steel Foundries v. HuntSearch
-
See Russell v. ToddSearch
-
See Wichita Royalty Co. v. CitySearch
-
See Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
Six Companies of California v. JointSearch
-
Cf. Graham v. White-PhillipsSearch
-
Village of Brewster v. HillSearch
-
See Keithler v. FosterSearch
-
Cleveland & M. Railroad Co. v. RobbinsSearch
-
Keither v. FosterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial