Seattle Dock Co. v. Seattle & Lake Washington Waterway Co., 195 U.S. 624 (1904). · Go Syfert
Search
Seattle Dock Co. v. Seattle & Lake Washington Waterway Co., 195 U.S. 624 (1904). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners (cal, 1941-03-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1906 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1906 1966 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Webster v. Board of Dental Examiners
Cal. · 1941 · confidence medium
A. (N. S.) 811], affirmed per curiam 195 U. S. 625 [25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dilliard v. State Board of Medical Examiners
Colo. · 1921 · confidence medium
A. (N. S.) 811, 72 Pac. 247 , aff. 195 U. S. 625 , 25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Doremus
W.D. Tex. · 1918 · confidence medium
This reserved police power retained in the states has reference to the practice of medicine, etc. See Meffert v. Packer et al., 195 U. S. 625 , 25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Freeman v. State Board of Medical Examiners
unknown court · 1915 · confidence medium
A. (N. S.) 811, affirmed, 195 U. S. 625 , 25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. Williamson
S.D. Ohio · 1915 · confidence medium
A. (N. S.) 811, affirmed 195 U. S. 625 , 25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamieson v. State Board of Medical Examiners
Okla. · 1913 · confidence medium
A county election board in placing upon the ballots for a primary election the names of candidates for nomination by the different political parties for the different officers to be elected by the county is engaged in the performance of a ministerial duty and does not exercise judicial power.” See, also, Meffert v. Packer et al., 95 U. S. 625 , 25 Sup. Ct. 790, 49 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Seattle Dock Company, in Error
v.
Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company Cannel Coal Company, in Error v. Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company
No. 390; No. 391.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 31, 1904.
195 U.S. 624
Mr. R. A. Ballinger, Mr. M. A. Ballinger„ Mr. J. T ot^ Mr Alfred Battle for the plaintiffs in error., Mr. Julius F. Hale and Mr. Eugene Semple for defendants in error. v
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Judgments affirmed with costs.. New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Company, 142 U. S. 79; Yesler v. Commissioners, 146 U. S. 646; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1; Allen v. Forrest, 8 Washington, 700; Mississippi Valley Trust Company v. Hafins, 20 Washington, 272, and these cases, 77 Pac. Rep. 845.

Mr. Julius F. Hale and Mr. Eugene Semple for defendants in error. v