Citation network
Angel Vs. Bullington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 17, 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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 183 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Angel v. BullingtonSearch
-
U.S. 183 (1947) Angel v. BullingtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
based on diversity of citizenship, since federal court in such suit must follow state law and policy. Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
all issues actually raised and decided, but also as to those which could have been raised. Southern Distributing Co. v. CarrawaySearch
-
Moore v. HarkinsSearch
-
North Carolina court rather than in another, of course, no federal issue would have been involved. See, e.g., Woods v. NierstheimerSearch
-
Madisonville Traction Company v. SaintSearch
-
Carolina Supreme Court may have been erroneous is immaterial for purposes of res judicata. Baltimore S.S. Co. v. PhillipsSearch
-
of its courts. Broderick v. RosnerSearch
-
Kenney v. SupremeSearch
-
When an asserted federal right is denied, the sufficiency of the grounds of denial is for this Court to decide. Titus v. WallickSearch
-
could have come here not merely by the grace of this Court on certiorari, but on appeal, as did White in White v. HartSearch
-
as did the East New York Savings Bank in the recent case of East New York Sav. Bank v. HahnSearch
-
challenge, though unsuccessfully, the limitation which New York placed upon the jurisdiction of its courts. Cf. Kenney v. SupremeSearch
-
outsiders is not to effect discrimination against the great body of local citizens. Cases like Lupton's Sons Co. v. AutomobileSearch
-
are obsolete insofar as they are based on a view of diversity jurisdiction which came to an end with Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
is claimed, the limitations upon the courts of a State do not control a federal court sitting in the State. Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSearch
-
by fair process, a controversy has once gone through the courts to conclusion. Compare, e.g., Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordSearch
-
have been dealt with in an earlier litigation are raised anew between the same parties. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. BaxterSearch
-
Bradford Electric Light Co. v. ClapperSearch
-
Dalton v. WebsterSearch
-
the cause of action. Certainly the state court had the power to interpret its own statute. Knights of Pythias v. MeyerSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
the merits. Where there is no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, the judgment is not upon the merits. Stoll v. GottliebSearch
-
the sense that they must follow state decisions upon the power of state courts, under the rule of Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSearch
-
The Court reaches the conclusion that res judicata should apply by an application of Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 64 , and Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSearch
-
law. In matters of procedure and jurisdiction, I take it, no one would contend that the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
We have said that federal courts must follow the law of the state as to burden of proof. Cities Service Oil Co. v. DunlapSearch
-
as to conflict of laws, Griffin v. McCoachSearch
-
Klaxon Co. v. StentorSearch
-
Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487 , and as to state statutes of limitation in equity cases, Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSearch
-
the Erie case, but that case did not change the state and federal jurisdiction. In Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
-
right to proceed in a federal court sitting in equity cannot be enlarged by a state statute is likewise clear, Scott v. NeelySearch
-
U. S. 451 . Nor can it be so narrowed. Mississippi Mills v. CohnSearch
-
to have a receiver appointed. If this were true the right conferred could be enforced in the federal courts ( Scott v. NeelySearch
-
See Henrietta Mills v. RutherfordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial