Barnett v. Kunkel
Citations
- 264 U.S. 16
- 44 S. Ct. 254
- 68 L. Ed. 539
- 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2472
Syllabus
<p>1. The Court of its own motion will dismiss an appeal not within its jurisdiction. P. 19.</p> <p>2. The federal jurisdiction of the District Court must appear in the plaintiff’s statement of his case. P, 20.</p> <p>3. A bill to quiet title, averring diversity of citizenship, and showing that the land in question was allotted Indian lands conveyed to plaintiff under the federal law and generally that the defendant asserts a conflicting title, but not showing that the conflict will involve the validity of conveyances made in virtue of the federal law, invokes the jurisdiction of the District Court on the ground of diverse citizenship only, so that review of the decree on the merits, even though federal issues were brought in by answer and cross bill, or at the trial, And decided, is final in the Circuit Court of Appeals (Jud. Code, § 128J unless tins Court shall grant a cer-tiorari (Id. § 240.) Pp. 19-21.</p> <p>4. Section 3 of the Act of June 25, 1910, authorizing appeals to this Court “ in all suits affecting the allotted lands within the eastern district of Oklahoma,” etc., was repealed by the Judicial Code. P. 21.</p>
Judges: Taft
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Donald J. Willy, and George A. Young v. The Coastal Corp., Coastal States Management Co., Inc., DefendantsFifth Circuit· 1988-09-29· cited 371×
- Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co.Supreme Court· 1933-03-13· cited 236×
- Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. MealeySupreme Court· 1948-06-14· cited 172×
- Smith v. McCulloughSupreme Court· 1926-04-12· cited 150×
- Fred L. Oliver, Cross-Appellants v. Trunkline Gas Co., Cross-AppelleeFifth Circuit· 1986-08-04· cited 25×
- Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.D. New Jersey· 1949-02-25· cited 17×
- Republic Pictures Corp. v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los AngelesFirst Circuit· 1952-06-11· cited 15×
- Deere v. St. Lawrence River Power Co.Second Circuit· 1929-05-06· cited 15×
- Virgin v. County of San Luis ObispoNinth Circuit· 2000-01-13· cited 13×
- Gordon H. Mitchell v. Roy P. Parham and Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control BoardTenth Circuit· 1966-04-25· cited 9×
- St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1925-11-16· cited 6×
- Grainger v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1972-02-28· cited 3×
- Kansas City v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.D. Kansas· 1951-11-19· cited 1×
- Edwin F. Virgin, Sr. v. County Of San Luis ObispoNinth Circuit· 2000-01-13
- Rusch v. Northern & Dakota Trust Co.North Dakota Supreme Court· 1932-03-25
- Twohy Bros. v. KennedySupreme Court· 1924-06-09
- Board of Directors v. Prairie Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court· 1925-01-26
- Sedgwick v. WingSupreme Court· 1925-12-07
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Taylor v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1914-05-25· cited 491×
- Shulthis v. McDougalSupreme Court· 1912-06-07· cited 424×
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. RutterSupreme Court· 1900-04-30· cited 175×
- Metcalf v. WatertownSupreme Court· 1888-12-17· cited 135×
- Hopkins v. WalkerSupreme Court· 1917-06-11· cited 113×
- Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1900-01-08· cited 90×
- Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. TurckSupreme Court· 1893-11-06· cited 57×
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. BellSupreme Court· 1900-02-26· cited 45×
- Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Railway Co. v. SkottoweSupreme Court· 1896-04-20· cited 41×
- Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co.Supreme Court· 1916-06-12· cited 33×
- Press Publishing Co. v. MonroeSupreme Court· 1896-11-09· cited 31×
- Barnett v. KunkelEighth Circuit· 1919-04-12· cited 29×
- Barnett v. KunkelEighth Circuit· 1922-07-29· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.