Calumet Grain & Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 188 U.S. 431 (1903). · Go Syfert
Calumet Grain & Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 188 U.S. 431 (1903). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
247 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 57 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Heffle v. State (alaska, 1981-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heffle v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1981 · confidence medium
United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437 , 23 S.Ct. 478, 480 , 47 L.Ed. 532, 537 (1903).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Complaint of Charles N. Wasson, Doing Business as Wasson Towing Company, Owner of the Motor Vessel Del Rio, and Wasson Towing Service, Inc., Bareboat Charterer of the Motor Vessel Del Rio, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability
7th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
But under existing legislation they must, before proceeding under such an authority, obtain also the assent of the State acting by its constituted agencies. 188 U.S. at 431 , 23 S.Ct. at 477. 93 Several courts have applied the Pennsylvania rule to the violation of state statutes or local ordinances.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Complaint of Wasson
7th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
But under existing legislation they must, before proceeding under such an authority, obtain also the assent of the State acting by its constituted agencies. 188 U.S. at 431 , 23 S.Ct. at 477.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rundell
circtedok · 1910 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court there declares the right of the nation to maintain a suit for the enforcement of its policy in regard to Indian allotments to be too plain for argument. 188 U. S. 444 , 23 Sup. Ct. 478, 47 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Allen
unknown court · 1910 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court there declares the right of the nation to maintain a suit for the enforcement of its policy in regard to Indian allotments to be too plain for argument. 188 U. S. 444 , 23 Sup. Ct. 478, 47 L.
cited Cited "see" Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court Cases
D. Utah · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 445 , 23 S.Ct. 478, 483 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903); United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407, 419 , 18 L.Ed. 182 (1865).
discussed Cited "see" Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 445 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903); United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407, 419 , 18 L.Ed. 182 (1865).
cited Cited "see" Western Shoshone Business Council v. Babbitt
10th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 445 , 23 S.Ct. 478, 483 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903); United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407, 419 , 18 L.Ed. 182 (1865).
cited Cited "see" Western Shoshone Business Council ex rel. Western Shoshone Tribe of the Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt
10th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rickeii, 188 U.S. 432, 445 , 23 S.Ct. 478, 483 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903); United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407, 419 , 18 L.Ed. 182 (1865).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Zay Zah (2×)
Minn. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437 , 23 S.Ct. 478, 480 , 47 L.Ed. 532, 536 .
discussed Cited "see" Zweigel v. Webster
E.D. Okla. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 ; United States v. Shock, C.C., 187 F. 870 , Eastern District of Oklahoma; Marcy v. Board of Commissioners of Seminole County et al., 45 Okl. 1 , 144 P. 611 .
cited Cited "see" Scheer v. Moody
D. Mont. · 1931 · signal: see · confidence high
See U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 436 , 23 S. Ct. 478 , 47 L.
cited Cited "see" Territory v. Annette Island Packing Co.
D. Alaska · 1922 · signal: see · confidence high
See U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 , 23 Sup. Ct. 478, 47 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hamilton v. Sommers (2×)
S.D. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ct., 420 U.S. 425, 428 , 95 S.Ct. 1082 , 1085 43 L.Ed.2d 300 (1975); see also United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903) (addressing authority of Roberts County to impose various taxes on lands “held by any Indian or Indian tribe”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting
D. Neb. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Generally, such standing has been presented in the context of disputes over Indian land: for instance, state alienation of the land, see Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 , 46 S.Ct. 298 ; conveyances by Indians, see Heckman, 224 U.S. 413 , 32 S.Ct. 424 ; or state taxation of the property, see Moe, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 ; see also United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." SAC and Fox Nation v. Pierce
10th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 (1903) (upholding Government’s right to seek injunctive relief against county taxation directed at improvements on and tools used to cultivate Sioux Indian lands).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Leading Fighter v. County of Gregory (4×)
S.D. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 , 23 S.Ct. 478 , 47 L.Ed. 532 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Calumet Grain and Elevator Company
v.
Chicago
135.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 23, 1903.
188 U.S. 431
Harlan.
Published
Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case relates to the construction of a dock in Calumet River, on or in front of land belonging to the appellant. The facts upon which that company principally bases its claims for relief are those upon which the plaintiffs relied in Cummings v. Chicago, just decided. Upon the authority of the decision in that case, the judgment in this case is

Affirmed.