§
In the Matter of G

10 Cited authorities

  1. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

    304 U.S. 64 (1938)   Cited 20,941 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

  2. Crooks v. Harrelson

    282 U.S. 55 (1930)   Cited 406 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the word “and” in its “ordinary sense” is a conjunctive word, requiring “not one or the other, but both see also e.g., City of Rome v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156, 172, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 64 L.Ed.2d 119

  3. Boston Sand Co. v. United States

    278 U.S. 41 (1928)   Cited 177 times
    Finding plain meaning rule an axiom of experience rather than a rule of law

  4. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan Trust Co.

    157 U.S. 429 (1895)   Cited 412 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895), the Court considered whether the 1894 income tax was a direct tax that failed to satisfy the Direct Tax Clause's apportionment requirement.

  5. Tiger v. Western Investment Co.

    221 U.S. 286 (1911)   Cited 205 times
    In Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286 (1911), for example, we upheld the constitutionality of the Act of Apr. 26, 1906, ch. 1876, § 22, 34 Stat. 145, which made alienation of certain allotted lands by citizen Indians "subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

  6. Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell

    222 U.S. 225 (1911)   Cited 112 times
    In Mutual Loan Company v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225, 32 S.Ct. 74, 56 L.Ed. 175 (1911), a creditor attacked the provi-sions of a Massachusetts statute regulating wage assignments.

  7. Ann Arbor Railroad v. United States

    281 U.S. 658 (1930)   Cited 22 times
    Stating that a joint resolution is construed according to general rules of statutory construction

  8. United States v. Baltimore Post

    268 U.S. 388 (1925)   Cited 1 times

    ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. No. 847. Argued April 16, 17, 1925. Decided May 25, 1925. Decided upon the authority of United States v. Dickey, ante, p. 378. 2 F.2d 761, affirmed. The Solicitor General for the United States. Mr. Newton D. Baker, for defendant in error. The matter published by the defendant was no part of the income return, but merely a copy of the list prepared and made available to public inspection by the commissioner. It is the duty

  9. Corralitos Company v. United States

    178 U.S. 280 (1900)   Cited 2 times

    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 267. Submitted April 24, 1900. Decided May 28, 1900. The appellant herein filed its original petition in the Court of Claims against the United States and the Apache Indians on September 6, 1892. Subsequently and by leave of court an amended petition was filed March 2, 1894, from which it appears that the petitioner is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of New York and doing business in the state of Chihuahua, county of Guleana, Republic of Mexico

  10. County of Moultrie v. Fairfield

    105 U.S. 370 (1881)   Cited 11 times

    OCTOBER TERM, 1881. 1. The charter of the Decatur, Sullivan, and Mattoon Railroad Company, which took effect March 26, 1869, authorized the board of supervisors of the county of Moultrie, Illinois, to subscribe to the capital stock of that company to an amount not exceeding $80,000, and also, should it be sanctioned by a popular vote, to make a donation in aid of the company, and in each case to issue the requisite amount of county bonds. 2. Where, before the adoption of the Constitution of Illinois