Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Jones

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 1949

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

61 entries 1 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Griffin US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1938
  2. U.S. 641 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jones
    Search
  3. U.S. 641 (1949) United States v. Jones
    Search
  4. b) No such jurisdiction was intended to be suggested by the language of this Court's opinion in United States v. Griffin
    Search
  5. back and forth through the Commission and the courts, finally to come here now for the second time. See United States v. Griffin
    Search
  6. as increased compensation due for the years 1931 to 1938, Griffin v. United
    Search
  7. in a decree filed on February 23, 1937. The Government appealed directly to this Court, which, in United States v. Griffin
    Search
  8. and upon statements made in part Fourth of the opinion in United States v. Griffin
    Search
  9. to authorizations of the Postmaster General for such service, it had been thought, until the decision in United States v. Griffin
    Search
  10. basis for the Court's ruling is no longer effective, Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United
    Search
  11. of an action for the balance, as the claim asserted is one founded upon a law of Congress. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  12. States, 271 U. S. 603 . Compare United States v. New
    Search
  13. Stat. 505, have jurisdiction also of an action for additional compensation if an order is confiscatory. United States v. Great
    Search
  14. North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. United
    Search
  15. Jacobs v. United
    Search
  16. if the Commission is alleged to have acted in excess of its authority, or otherwise illegally. Compare Powell v. United
    Search
  17. of fact going to the order's appropriateness on the merits. The case is wholly unlike Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  18. United States v. New
    Search
  19. Together with No. 198, Jones, Receiver v. United
    Search
  20. The opinion, quoting the Court of Claims' language in an earlier railway mail pay case, New York Central R. Co. v. United
    Search
  21. States, 65 Ct.Cl. 115, 128-129, aff'd, United States v. New
    Search
  22. Cf. Jacobs v. United
    Search
  23. of Columbia courts created pursuant to that Article to exercise legislative functions such as ratemaking. Cf. Keller v. Potomac
    Search
  24. Postum Cereal Co. v. California
    Search
  25. Prentis v. Atlantic
    Search
  26. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  27. Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United
    Search
  28. Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  29. United States v. Illinois
    Search
  30. Shields v. Utah
    Search
  31. Idaho Cent. R. Co., 305 U. S. 177 , 305 U. S. 184 -185. Cf. Norton v. Warner
    Search
  32. Cited in the text, 303 U.S. at 303 U. S. 238 , were Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  33. pouch space) but for space in which postal employees sorted mail ( e.g., apartment mail cars), and United States v. New
    Search
  34. Chicago & E.I. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  35. Nevada County Narrow Gauge R. Co. v. United
    Search
  36. Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  37. The Nevada County Narrow Gauge R. Co. case, supra, was a companion to New York Central R. Co. v. United
    Search
  38. States, 65 Ct.Cl. 115, aff'd, United States v. New
    Search
  39. In Pere Marquette R. Co. v. United
    Search
  40. Ct.Cl. at 248. Cf. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. United
    Search
  41. noted that district court suits to enjoin the Postmaster General's fraud orders are commonplace. See, e.g., Williams v. Fanning
    Search
  42. See Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United
    Search
  43. States, 280 U. S. 420 , 280 U. S. 444 , n. 4. Cf. National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  44. Shields v. Utah
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jones
    Search
  46. See United States v. Griffin
    Search
  47. Griffin v. United
    Search
  48. Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United
    Search
  49. of Congress. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United
    Search
  50. Compare United States v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial