green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 ·
…he prohibition of such a preference does not extend to acts which may directly benefit the ports of one state and only incidentally injuriously affect those of another....
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nevada v. Watkins
he prohibition of such a preference does not extend to acts which may directly benefit the ports of one state and only incidentally injuriously affect those of another....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Nevada, Richard H. Bryan, Governor of Nevada, Paul Laxalt, United States Senator, Chic Hecht, United States Senator, Barbara Vucanovich, United States Representative in Congress, Harry Reid, United States Representative in Congress v. James D. Watkins, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, State of Nevada v. U.S. Department of Energy, James D. Watkins, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, Arizona Public Service Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Detroit Edison Company, Duke Power Company, Duquesne Light Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Gulf States Utilities Company, Iowa Electric Light & Power Company, Madison Gas and Electric Company, New York Power Authority, Northeast Utilities, Northern States Power Company, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Union Electric Company, Virginia Power, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Intervenors
he prohibition of such a preference does not extend to acts which may directly benefit the ports of one state and only incidentally injuriously affect those of another....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Houston and American Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration
Citing Wheeling Bridge, he observed, “the prohibition of such a preference does not extend to Acts which may directly benefit the ports of one State and only incidentally injuriously affect those of another.” 93 U.S. at 13 , 23 L.Ed. at 784 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boone v. United States
See South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 10, 12 , 23 L.Ed. 782 (1876) 11 The Court in Grand River Dam Authority declined to decide whether the navigational servitude extends to nonnavigable tributaries. 363 U.S. at 232 , 80 S.Ct. at 1136 .
cited
Cited "see"
Boone v. United States
See South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 10, 12 , 23 L.Ed. 782 (1876). .
cited
Cited "see"
City of Milwaukee v. Block
See n. 4, supra. Defendants shall submit responses to plaintiffs’ filings within 20 days of service of plaintiffs’ filing.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gaines Et Al.
v.
Hale Et Al.
v.
Hale Et Al.
3.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 16, 1876.
Submitted on- printed arguments by Mr. W. M. Bose for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Albert Pike, Mr. B. W. Johnson, Mr. J. B. Sanborn, and Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, for the defendants in error.
Bradley.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision made by this court in Sot Springs Oases at the last term, 92 U. S. 698, has disposed of the principal controversy bet'weén the parties in this case, by declaring that neither of them is entitled to the land in question^ and that the same belongs to the United States. As the decree of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in the present case, does not contravene this decision, but refuses aid to any of the parties against each other, except as to the improvements erected by each respectively, and as to these, saves the rights of the United States, we do not perceive any error in said decree on any Federal question. Decree affirmed.