Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cope Vs. Anderson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 02, 1947

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

43 entries 5 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcclaine Vs. Rankin US Supreme Court · Mar 06, 1905
  2. Rawlings Vs. Ray US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1941
  3. Holmberg Vs. Armbrecht US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1946
  4. Fisher Vs. Whiton US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1942
  5. Guaranty Trust Co. Vs. York US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1945
  6. U.S. 461 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Cope v. Anderson
    Search
  7. U.S. 461 (1947) Cope v. Anderson
    Search
  8. U. S. 468 . Page 331 U. S. 463 MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. In Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  9. reason, we look to Ohio and Pennsylvania law to determine the period in which these suits may be brought. McDonald v. Thompson
    Search
  10. its relief in such a case where the applicable statute of limitations would bar the concurrent legal remedy. Russell v. Todd
    Search
  11. U. S. 280 , 309 U. S. 289 and cases cited. See also Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  12. agent, the Receiver here, could not bring these actions until the date for payment fixed by the Comptroller. Rawlings v. Ray
    Search
  13. governing a federally created right, that statute Page 331 U. S. 466 would control of its own force. Herget v. Central
    Search
  14. would lead us to believe that its borrowing statute should be given such a sterilizing interpretation. Cf. Townsend v. Eichelberger
    Search
  15. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Larwill
    Search
  16. by the limitations law of the state where the crucial combination of events transpired. Seaboard Terminals Corp. v. Standard
    Search
  17. Bluefields S.S. Co. v. United
    Search
  18. Fruit Co., 243 F. 1, 19-20. See Campbell v. Haverhill
    Search
  19. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta
    Search
  20. in Kentucky within the meaning of the Ohio statute. See Hunter v. Niagara
    Search
  21. Alropa Corp. v. Kirchwehm
    Search
  22. Payne v. Kirchwehm
    Search
  23. Bowers v. Holabird
    Search
  24. National Bondholders Corp. v. Stoddard
    Search
  25. Ohio Supp. 19. See also Hilliard v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  26. in Kentucky, and that the five-year statute of Kentucky bars this action. See Mister v. Burkholder
    Search
  27. Bell v. Brady
    Search
  28. In re Shaffer's Estate, 228 Pa. 36, 40, 76 A. 716, 717. Cf. Rosenzweig v. Heller
    Search
  29. Together with No. 656, Anderson, Receiver v. Helmers
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Cope v. Anderson
    Search
  31. of the Court. In Anderson v. Abbott
    Search
  32. Russell v. Todd
    Search
  33. the Comptroller. Rawlings v. Ray
    Search
  34. Herget v. Central
    Search
  35. Cf. Townsend v. Eichelberger
    Search
  36. Seaboard Terminals Corp. v. Standard
    Search
  37. See Campbell v. Haverhill
    Search
  38. See Hunter v. Niagara
    Search
  39. Hilliard v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  40. See Mister v. Burkholder
    Search
  41. Cf. Rosenzweig v. Heller
    Search
  42. Anderson, Receiver v. Helmers
    Search
  43. McDonald v. Thompson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales