Case law

Knight v. Shelton

134 F. 423 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jan 7, 1905

Comparing the various clauses in that instrument on the subject of elections and majorities required, it will clearly appear that the framers thereof intended to establish a different rule for different elections. … Article 13, § 3, provides that county seats shall not be established or changed without the consent of “a majority of the qualified voters of the county” to be affected by such change.

Van Lear v. Eisele

126 F. 823 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Dec 29, 1903

That, as such physician, he has been successful, and established quite a profitable business. … That the hot water, which belongs to the government, is piped from the springs and reservoirs erected by the government to the various bathing establishments, and visitors can only take these baths at these establishments

Schenck v. Peay

21 F. Cas. 672 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Apr 15, 1869

Snow never fully qualified. His bond was never approved. … Now, does not this language clearly imply that the taxes may be paid any time “previous to sale”?

Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones

105 F. 459 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Dec 29, 1900

“It is a well-established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts or any other without its consent and permission; but it may, if it thinks proper, waive this … Some of the states of the Union, including Arkansas, have at times claimed no immunity from suit, but made provision for submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of courts at the suit of any one who choose to sue them.

H. B. Claflin Co. v. Middlesex Banking Co.

113 F. 958 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Feb 19, 1902

The failure of Nugent to qualify as assignee, as prescribed by the laws of the state of Arkansas, prevents him from maintaining an action at law for the possession of the assigned estate. Bartlett v. Teah (C. … The possession of the banking company, and afterwards its vendees, was under a deed valid on its face, and clearly adverse to the original mortgagor and all parties claiming under him or by any other title.

Harrison v. Hadley

11 F. Cas. 649 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jan 13, 1873

But the principle is now established that the circuit court of the United States can exercise jurisdiction in no case solely upon the ground that it falls within the constitutional grant of judicial power to the United States … and ancillary relief, and the reasoning that excludes the jurisdiction of the court over the principal subject matter of the suit applies with equal force to the ancillary and auxiliary relief sought The complainant is clearly

Files v. Davis

118 F. 465 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Nov 12, 1902

was determined upon the ground that the right claimed was under an authority exercised under the United States, the second proposition in that case, “Did the claim of immunity from liability for attorney’s fees, as one of … This proceeding may therefore be properly treated as ancillary to- the original attachment suit, and is clearly within the rule established in this circuit by Mr. Justice Brewer while circuit judge, in Patterson v.

Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co.

96 F. 353 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Sep 2, 1899

This was distinctly adjudged, and the reasons clearly stated, in Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 589 , 9 Sup. Ct. 173, 174, in which Mr. … As tending to establish the correctness of this doctrine, in Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.

Watson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

169 F. 942 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jun 15, 1909

Ed. 357 : “The selection, in order to become obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment, must be arbitrary and unreasonable, not merely possibly, but clearly and actually so.” … caused by the wrongs committed by his servants while acting about the business of the master and within the scope of his employment is based upon the maxim of respondeat superior; but, when the fellow-servant rule was first established

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews

154 F. 95 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jun 22, 1907

This is virtually to enjoin the state from proceeding through its duly qualified and acting officers.” In Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Jones (C. … The “special” duty there meant is clearly an administrative duty, such as is exercised by boards or ministerial officers, but not attorneys.

Hale v. Bugg

82 F. 33 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Mar 31, 1897

Authorities on this precise point might he multiplied almost indefinitely, but the g'eneral rule is so well established as not to require further citation. Baldwin v. Hosmer (Mich.) 59 N. … It is not sufficient to show that, by the law and usage in the courts of tire state where such decree of dissolution is passed, such corporation is permanently dissolved, although it still has a qualified existence, capable

In re Van Vliet

43 F. 761 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Oct 31, 1890

But clearly these ut *764 terances are not obiter dicta in the usual sense of that term. … The constitution declares that congress shall have power to establish “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen

181 F. 710 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Aug 18, 1910

It is broadly conceded that the general rule clearly established by repeated decisions of the court is against the doing of either, and therefore decisions establishing the rule need not be cited. … Justice Brown accepted, as the established law of that court, the rule laid down in Re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200 , 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 31 L.

Union County Nat. Bank of Liberty, Ind. v. Ozan Lumber Co.

127 F. 206 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Jan 2, 1904

Kentucky), the distinction referred to above is clearly recognized. I need not stop to multiply, review, or distinguish the cases on that point. … Section 1 of article 14 of the Constitution of the United States provides that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Davis

132 F. 629 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Oct 8, 1904

Justice Harlan, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: “It may therefore be regarded as the established law of this court that so long as the state, by its laws prescribing the mode and subjects of taxation, does not … Such a ease is clearly within the provisions of section 641 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 520].

Moore & McFerrin v. McGuire

142 F. 787 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jan 10, 1906

Upon these facts the court held that no mistake was clearly established, but even if it had been established, that the court would not disturb these settlements. *799 In Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395 , 20 L. … From these authorities', the conclusion reached by the court is that a state may lose its sovereignty and jurisdiction over its territory by prescription and acquiescence whenever these facts are clearly established.

Curtice v. Crawford County Bank

110 F. 830 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Sep 20, 1901

event all restraint, except that of conscience, is removed, because there are none to question; and the temptation to deceive, to suppress, to prevaricate, is not held in check by the fear of contradiction or exposure, and immunity … from the penalty of false swearing is made practically sure, Nor must it be forgotten that the removal of the barrier which dis-. qualified a party to a suit to testify at all does not add anything to his credibility, or

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Quigley

181 F. 190 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · Jun 13, 1910

contract made by the ordinances granting the rights, privileges, and franchises; (6) that the enforcement of the ordinance would deprive the company of its property without due process of law and abridge its privileges and immunities … feared consists in repetitions of suits by the same person against the plaintiff for causes of action arising out of the same facts and legal principles, a court of equity ought not to interfere upon that ground unless it is clearly

Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.

157 F. 570 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jan 2, 1908

That a court of equity has no power to restrain criminal'proceedings, with few exceptions, is the established rule in England as well as in the courts of the United States. … We must be able to see clearly that it goes beyond that power.

Osborn v. Nicholson

18 F. Cas. 846 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Jul 1, 1870

The constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one state, under the laws thereof.’ ” Nothing can more clearly describe a status created by municipal law. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 10 Pet. [35 U. … No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor