Citation network
United States Vs. Carmack
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 09, 1946
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
-
U.S. 230 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CarmackSearch
-
U.S. 230 (1946) United States v. CarmackSearch
-
its condemnation by the United States as a means of carrying out an admittedly federal governmental function. Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
the power of eminent domain, when exercised by Congress within its constitutional powers, be equally supreme. Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
being taken for a purpose destructive of the public use to which it had been dedicated by her ancestors. Carmack v. UnitedSearch
-
and dismissed the petition. United States v. CertainSearch
-
While, in its early days, the Federal Government filed its condemnation cases in the State courts, this Court, in Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
be exercised. The consent of a State can never be a condition precedent to its enjoyment (Italics supplied.) Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
powers, be equally supreme. Mr. Justice Bradley stated this principle clearly, while on circuit, in Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
turning largely on Missouri law, was upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals, following the first trial, Carmack v. UnitedSearch
-
that interest in order to reach our decision, we do not reexamine it. Board of Regents for Normal School Dist. No. 3 v. PainterSearch
-
Mott v. MorrisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
being in rem, the jurisdiction of the court does not turn upon her participation in the case. Cf. United States v. DunningtonSearch
-
Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
An appeal in Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Court, 140 U.S. 699, and, in the meantime, Mr. Justice Bradley's statement was quoted with approval in Cherokee Nation v. SouthernSearch
-
United States v. GettysburgSearch
-
Luxton v. NorthSearch
-
See Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
See United States v. CooperSearch
-
D.C. 104, 116, aff'd sub nom. Shoemaker v. UnitedSearch
-
Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
express grant of superiority over conflicting public uses reflects an absence of such superiority. See United States v. JothamSearch
-
Bixby Co., 55 F.2d 317, 319, aff'd sub nom. C.M. Patten & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CitySearch
-
Cf. Fox Film Corp. v. TrumbullSearch
-
Puget Sound Power & L. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
United States v. EightySearch
-
Acres of Land in Williamson County, 26 F.Supp. 315, 319. See also United States v. CertainSearch
-
United States v. ParcelSearch
-
Italics supplied.) United States v. CertainSearch
-
Rindge Co. v. LosSearch
-
Sears v. CitySearch
-
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Shoemaker v. UnitedSearch
-
Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
United States v. MontanaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CarmackSearch
-
Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
Carmack v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CertainSearch
-
Cf. United States v. DunningtonSearch
-
Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cherokee Nation v. SouthernSearch
-
United States v. GettysburgSearch
-
See United States v. JothamSearch
-
C.M. Patten & Co. v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial