CHINO LEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE UNITED STATES
CHINO LEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
THE UNITED STATES
231 U.S. 735
Supreme Court of the United States (1913)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 659-663; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. S. 70, 82; Price v. United States, 165 U. S. 311. Mr. A. D. Gibbs for the plaintiff in error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co., 245 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1917)…he writ of- error must be Dismissed. King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. Treasurer of West Virginia, 188 U. S. 739; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; King v. Buskirk, 231 U. S. 735.…
Authorities Cited
- Mugler v. Kansas. Same V. Same, 123 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1887)
- Holden v. Hardy (No. 1), 169 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1898)
- Price v. United States, 165 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1897)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1912)