Us Supreme Court Court October 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lee Vs. New Jersey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-28-1907
Lee v. New Jersey - 207 U.S. 67 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. New Jersey, 207 U.S. 67 (1907) Lee v. New Jersey No. 16 Argued October 16, 1907 Decided October 28, 1907 207 U.S. 67 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus A state has power to regulate the oyster industry, although carried on under tidal water in the state. Although a state statute may be unconstitutional as against a class to which the party complaining does not belong, that fact does not authorize the reversal of a judgment not enforcing the statute so as to deprive that party of any right protected by the federal Constitution. Where it appear that a conviction under the New Jersey statute for the protection of the oyster industry depended both in the charge and in the testimony upon the actual illegal use of oyster dredge, and the possible construction of the statute which made it a crime to merely Page 207 U. S. 68 navigate interstate waters was not essential to t...
Ex Parte First National Bank of Chicago
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-28-1907
Ex Parte First National Bank of Chicago - 207 U.S. 61 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte First National Bank of Chicago, 207 U.S. 61 (1907) Ex Parte First National Bank of Chicago No. 8 Original, and 38 Submitted May 13, 1907 Decided October 28, 1907 207 U.S. 61 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Where the circuit court of appeals, after issuing mandamus to the district judge requiring him to modify a decree so as to conform to the decision of this Court, allows the party in interest a writ of error and the district judge declines to sue out or join in the writ, the writ will not be dismissed because the district judge is not a party, and the fact that he has obeyed the order will not prejudice the position of the plaintiff in error. This Court customarily issues a single mandate, and if in a case originating in the district court it is addressed to the circuit court of appeals, the directions are simply to be communicated to the distric...
Raymond Vs. Chicago Union Traction Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-21-1907
Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co. - 207 U.S. 20 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U.S. 20 (1907) Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Company No. 116 Argued April 8, 9, 1907 Decided October 21, 1907 207 U.S. 20 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are not confined to the action of the state through its legislative, executive, or judicial authority, but relate to all instrumentalities through which the state acts, and so held that the action of a state board of equalization, the decisions whereof are conclusive except as proceedings for relief may be taken in the courts, is reviewable in the federal courts at the instance of one claiming to be thereby deprived of his property without due process of law and denied the equal protection of the law. Action of a board of equalization resulting in illegal discrimination held in this case no...
Lawson Vs. United States Mining Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-21-1907
Lawson v. United States Mining Co. - 207 U.S. 1 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 207 U.S. 1 (1907) Lawson v. United States Mining Company No. 2 Argued October 11, 12, 1906 Decided October 21, 1907 207 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus One in possession of the surface of a mining claim under a patent from the United States is presumably in possession of all beneath the surface and, under 3511, Rev.Stat., Utah, may maintain an action in equity to quiet title to a vein beneath the surface and to enjoin the removal of ore therefrom. Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15 , followed; Boston &c.; Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U. S. 632 , distinguished. The ownership of the apex of a vein must be established before any extralateral title to the vein can be recognized. Discovery is the all-important fact upon which title to mines depends, and where there is a single broad vein whose apex or outcrop...
Tilt Vs. Kelsey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-21-1907
Tilt v. Kelsey - 207 U.S. 43 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43 (1907) Tilt v. Kelsey No. 18 Argued January 28, 1907 Decided October 21, 1907 207 U.S. 43 ERROR TO THE SURROGATES COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK AND STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Where judicial proceedings in one state are relied upon as a defense to an assessment by the authorities of another state, a right under the Constitution of the United States is specially set up and claimed, though it was not in terms stated to be such a right. An adjudication by the probate court that a testator was a resident of the state, though essential to the assumption of jurisdiction to grant letters testamentary, is not necessarily conclusive on the question of domicil, nor even evidence of it in a collateral proceeding, and, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, is not binding upon the courts of another state. In respect to the settlement of successions to property on death, th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›