United States v. Coe
Citations
- 155 U.S. 76
- 15 S. Ct. 16
- 39 L. Ed. 76
- 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2250
Syllabus
<p>The provisions in the act of March 3, 1891, c. 539, 26 S'tat. 854, “ to establish a court of private land claims and to provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain States and Territories,” authorizing this court to amend the proceedings of the court below, and to cause additional testimony to be taken, are not mandatory, but only empower the court to direct further proofs, and to amend the record, if in its judgment the case demands its interposition to that effect.</p> <p>The judicial action of all inferior courts established by Congress may, in accordance with the Constitution, be subjected to the appellate jurisdiction 6f the Supreme Court of the United States.</p> <p>An appeal lies to this court from a judgment of the Court of Private Land Claims over property in the Territories.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- de- scribing that opinion as having “settled” that Article III “does not exhaust the power of Congress to establish courts”
- de- scribing that opinion as having “settled” that Article III “does not exhaust the power of Congress to establish courts”
- court of private land claims
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court· 1982-10-04· cited 3,187×
- Glidden Co. v. ZdanokSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 689×
- Palmore v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1973-04-24· cited 502×
- Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court· 1929-05-20· cited 285×
- Burns, Stix Friedman & Co. v. CommissionerU.S. Tax Court· 1971-12-16· cited 116×
- Anthony v. CommissionerU.S. Tax Court· 1976-05-27· cited 76×
- Ortiz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-06-22· cited 53×
- Roosevelt F. Palmore v. Superior Court of the District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 1975-07-09· cited 29×
- Chow Loy v. United StatesFirst Circuit· 1901-11-23· cited 16×
- United States v. Pablo Perez MontanezSecond Circuit· 1967-01-16· cited 14×
- United States v. StarlingD. Alaska· 1959-02-21· cited 5×
- Energy Cooperative, Inc. v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. (In Re Energy Cooperative, Inc.)N.D. Illinois· 1982-02-01· cited 2×
- Montanez v. United StatesS.D. New York· 1964-02-24· cited 2×
- Ortiz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-06-25
- T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System CorporationSupreme Court· 2026-06-18
- T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation Revisions: 6/19/26Supreme Court· 2026-06-18
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 734×
- Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1892-01-04· cited 174×
- McAllister v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1891-05-25· cited 131×
- Blease v. GarlingtonSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 91×
- Wiscart v. DauchySupreme Court· 1796-08-12· cited 53×
- Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1893-03-06· cited 37×
Other cases named United States v. Coe
11 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- United States v. CoeEleventh Circuit· 1996-03-29· cited 16×
- United States v. CoeSupreme Court· 1899-05-22· cited 3×
- United States v. CoeN.D. Ohio· 1904-07-01· cited 1×
- United States v. CoeThird Circuit· 1975-12-16
- United States v. CoeThird Circuit· 1976-02-02
- United States v. CoeSupreme Court· 1898-06-29
- United States v. CoeSupreme Court· 1905-01-09
- United States v. CoeFifth Circuit· 2012-10-16
- United States v. CoeFourth Circuit· 2013-12-23
- United States v. CoeSixth Circuit· 2015-11-19
- United States v. CoeC.D. Illinois· 1999-10-14
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.