Rosencranz v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HUNT, District Judge.-
The first contention of the plaintiff in error is that the District Court of Alaska had no jurisdiction because by the act of Congress approved April 28, 1904 (33 Stat. 529-534 c. 1778), which was “An act to amend and codify the laws relating to municipal corporations in the District of Alaska,” Congress conferred upon municipal corporations in Alaska the power to prohibit gambling, houses of ill fame, and other misdemeanors, and to prescribe the punishment therefor, and that thereby it repealed section 127 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1899 (Carter’s Code),…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio · 1893
- State v. SteevesOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Thiede v. Utah TerritorySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- McInerney v. City of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Stokley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
- Kelly v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Backun v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- Malatkofski v. United States. Seigel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1950
- Von Patzoll v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.