Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentStone, J.
If it be the duty of Minnesota courts to try these imported cases, however devious the route over which they come or however distant the state of origin, the duty must exist by reason of Minnesota’s being one of the United States and so subject to their constitution; or it must be found in that principle of the common law known as comity. There being no effort in the opinion of the majority to put the supposed duty upon any foundation of recognized legal and stated principle, I must examine the result from the standpoint of both (1) constitutional law and (2)' comity.
1. I agree with the first…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Hanley v. DonoghueSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.