Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1 (1918). · Go Syfert
Search
Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1 (1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Council for Tribal Employment Rights v. United States (uscfc, 2013-08-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Council for Tribal Employment Rights v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 *247 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942 , 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) (internal quotations omitted)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dukakis v. United States Department of Defense
D. Mass. · 1988 · confidence medium
Id. at 6, 38 S.Ct. at 422 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) St. John's Presbytery v. Central Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburg
Fla. · 1958 · confidence medium
In Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1 , 38 S.Ct. 422 , 62 L.Ed. 939, 946, 947 , it was in part said: "* * * the court is of opinion that the doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Hallinan
Cal. · 1954 · confidence medium
(See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 *247 U.S. 1, 8 [ 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ].) He has not directly challenged by appeal or otherwise the propriety of his prosecution and conviction for violating section 145, subdivision (b).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America
SCOTUS · 1952 · confidence medium
See also Buchanan, The Ten Years' Conflict (Edinburgh, 1849); Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun, [1904] A. C. 515; The Free Church of Scotland Appeals (Orr. ed., Edinburgh, 1904). [3] Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1871, p. 442; Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1872, p. 253; Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1874, p. 43; Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1876, p. 28; 5 Gesetz-Sammlung fur die Koniglich Preussischen Staaten 154, 221, 223, 225, 228, 337, 342; 6 id., at 30, 38, 40, 75, 170 ; 7 id., at 291.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc.
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Presbyterian Church in United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 445 (1969); see also Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1, 2 (1918) (affirming Watson but noting its limited effect on state authorities).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shepard Et Al.
v.
Barkley, Moderator of the General Assembly and Chairman of the Executive Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Et Al.
257.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 6, 1918.
247 U.S. 1
Mr. Charles E. Morrow-, with whom Mr. Max D. Aber' was on the briefs, for appellants., Mr. Frank Hagerman for appellees.
White.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice White,

by direction of the court.

The court is of the opinion that the following propositions are well founded, although , some members of the[*2] coiirt differ concerning them(a) That the appeal in this . case brings up for review both the causes which were decided by the court below at the same time and both therefore will be controlled by the decree here to be rendered, (b) That the order allowing an amendment as to the form of the appeal and the parties which was previously made without prejudice to the right of the appellees to object to the same at the hearing on the merits was rightfully granted and the objection which was at the hearing on the merits , made by the appellees is without merit, (c). That under the case as made by the pleadings there is authority to review. .'

The approach to the/merits being thus cleared, without any difference on the subject the court is of opinion that the .doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them; Watson v . Jones, 13 Wall. 679. And the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the Watson Case is, if needs.be, conclusively, shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its, opinion (222 Fed. Rep. 669) in which the Watson Case was made controlling ancl decisive as to controversies not. in substance differing fr^ni1 the one here presented. Sherard v. Walton, 206 Fed. Rep. 562; Helm v. Zarecor, 213 Fed. Rep. 648; Sharp v. Bonham, 213 Fed. Rep. 660; Harris v. Cosby, 173 Alabama, 81; Sanders v. Baggerly, 96 Arkansas, 117; Permanent Committee of Missions v. P acific Synod, 157 California, 105; Mack v. Kime, 129 Georgia, 1; First Presbyterian Church of Lincoln v. First Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Lincoln, 245 Illinois, 74; Fussell v. Hail, 233 Illinois, 73; Fancy Prairie Church v. King, 245 Illinois, 120; Pleasant Grove Congregation v. Riley, 248 Illinois, 604; Ramsey v. Hicks, 174 Indiana, 428; Bentle v. Ulay, 175 Indiana, 494; Wallace v. Hughes, [*3] 131 Kentucky, 445; Carothers, v. Mosely, 99 Mississippi, 671; Hayes v. Manning, 263 Missouri, 1; Missouri Valley College v. Guthrie, 263 Missouri, 52; First Presbyterian Church v. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 34 Oklahoma, 503; Brown v. Clark, 102 Texas, 323.

Affirmed.