204 U.S. 241
Docket No. 70.
Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1907-01-21
<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA.</p>
2 counsel of record
Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Dent v. State of West Virginia · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al.
Cited in Case Law’s definition of “constructive notice in proceedings against real estate” · Case Law’s definition of “due process of law (no fixed procedure)”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1907-01-21
Cited by 58 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1999 · most notably Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA.
¶2Decided on authority of Crowe v. Trickey, ante, p. 228.
¶371 Pac. Rep. 1125, affirmed.
¶4Mr. W. C. Keegin, Mr. F. H. Hereford and Mr. S. E. Hazzard for appellant.1
¶5Mr. Eugene S. Ives for appellees.
¶8This case is identical in all essential respects with that just decided* and must take the same course.
¶9Judgment affirmed.