Citation network
Snyder Vs. Buck
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 13, 1950
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. 15 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. BuckSearch
-
U.S. 15 (1950) Snyder v. BuckSearch
-
The complaint in this case makes no claim against Buck personally. Therefore, we put to one side cases such as Patton v. BradySearch
-
See Secretary of Interior v. McGarrahanSearch
-
See LeCrone v. McAdooSearch
-
Claussen v. CurranSearch
-
Mathues v. UnitedSearch
-
action is nonetheless pending within the meaning of the section though an appeal is being sought, see Becker Steel Co. v. HicksSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Trinler v. CarusiSearch
-
F.2d 1014, as was implicit in Mathues v. UnitedSearch
-
duties for which Buck was no longer responsible. Hence, he was not in position to obtain a review of it. See Davis v. PrestonSearch
-
was a suit to enforce an obligation of the corporation or municipality to which the office was attached. See Thompson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 103 U. S. 480 , 103 U. S. 483 , as explained in United States ex rel. Bernardin v. ButterworthSearch
-
supra, at 169 U. S. 603 , and in Murphy v. UtterSearch
-
The practice of this Court was therefore to dismiss the writ, leaving undisturbed the judgments below. LeCrone v. McAdooSearch
-
Wattis v. LaneSearch
-
Payne v. IndustrialSearch
-
Payne v. StevensSearch
-
In United States ex rel. Claussen v. CurranSearch
-
supra, and Mathues v. UnitedSearch
-
It does this on the basis of the analysis of the first enactment made in Defense Supplies Corp. v. LawrenceSearch
-
of applicability. The Act of 1899 was a response to this Court's suggestion. See United States ex rel. Bernardin v. ButterworthSearch
-
This was likewise true of the Act of 1925. See Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
situation in our law which calls for abrogation, instead of extension. For the history of these actions, See Cary v. CurtisSearch
-
How. 236, and United States v. NunnallySearch
-
in fact a suit against the Government, and, as such, barred by want of the sovereign's consent to be sued. See Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
of deep sentiment, reflected by legislation and adjudication, has looked askance at the doctrine. See Keifer & Keifer v. R.FSearch
-
defendant the United States as the real defendant. This seems to me to be the spirit of the decision in Thompson v. UnitedSearch
-
Chief Justice Taft used Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
Maxwell v. UnitedSearch
-
Thomson v. UnitedSearch
-
Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
That is the action which this Court took in Davis v. PrestonSearch
-
Page 340 U. S. 35 This Court now concludes that Davis v. PrestonSearch
-
Cf. Board of Commissioner v. SellewSearch
-
Emanuel v. JaegerSearch
-
United Porto Rican Sugar Co. v. SaldanaSearch
-
Federal Rule 73 timely and proper notice of appeal goes to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, United Drug Co. v. HelveringSearch
-
Lamb v. ShastaSearch
-
Marten v. HessSearch
-
Tinkoff v. WestSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial