Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Alabama Vs. Texas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 15, 1954

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

39 entries 3 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Scranton Vs. Wheeler US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1900
  2. United States Vs. Wyoming US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1947
  3. Toomer Vs. Witsell US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  4. U.S. 272 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. Texas
    Search
  5. U.S. 272 (1954) Alabama v. Texas
    Search
  6. Cl. 2, United States Constitution. United States v. Gratiot
    Search
  7. United States v. Midwest
    Search
  8. precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.' Camfield v. United
    Search
  9. Light v. United
    Search
  10. United States v. San
    Search
  11. United States v. California
    Search
  12. is without limitation. United States v. San
    Search
  13. Original, Rhode Island v. Louisiana
    Search
  14. of the quoted clause. It is their position that the resources under the marginal sea do not, under United States v. Texas
    Search
  15. United States v. Louisiana
    Search
  16. U. S. 699 , and United States v. California
    Search
  17. among states by extending state power into the domain of national responsibility. See United States v. Texas
    Search
  18. supra, at 339 U. S. 719 , and Coyle v. Oklahoma
    Search
  19. United States v. Texas
    Search
  20. to one state without corresponding cession to all states has been consistently recognized. See, e.g., United States v. Wyoming
    Search
  21. individual states to alter the historic relationship of the states respecting navigation of the ocean. See Kelly v. Washington
    Search
  22. Toomer v. Witsell
    Search
  23. as States which is theirs by right. United States v. Texas
    Search
  24. waters are recognized, I am uncertain where lines can be drawn. The Court's decision today in Federal Power Commission v. Niagara
    Search
  25. Lord v. Steamship
    Search
  26. Camfield v. United
    Search
  27. U. S. 141 , 179 U. S. 160 , 179 U. S. 163 . See also United States v. Commodore
    Search
  28. See United States v. California
    Search
  29. dissenting. California lost her claim to the sea beyond the low water mark by a six to two decision. United States v. California
    Search
  30. in the Court's membership, and Texas lost her claim to the marginal sea by a four to three decision. United States v. Texas
    Search
  31. California and Texas cases was that more than property rights was involved. As we said in United States v. Texas
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. Texas
    Search
  33. United States Constitution. United States v. Gratiot
    Search
  34. and United States v. California
    Search
  35. See United States v. Texas
    Search
  36. and Coyle v. Oklahoma
    Search
  37. See Kelly v. Washington
    Search
  38. Federal Power Commission v. Niagara
    Search
  39. United States v. Commodore
    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