LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
v.
CITY OF LINCOLN ET AL.

U.S. | 1920-06-07
No. 810
253 U.S. 477 Supreme Court of the United States (1920) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 429; United States v; Beatty, 232 U. S., 463, 466; Bexford v. Brunswick-Balke-Collehder Co., 228 U. S. 339, 346. And see Pichel v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 239 U. S. 629.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ex parte in the Matter of Lincoln GAS & Elec. Light Co., 256 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1921)
    …o obtain a supersedeaé, with a continuance of injunction, pending its appeal from the decree of September 23, 1915. An appeal from the order retaining jurisdiction, taken by the company to this court, was dismissed because the order lacked finality. 253 U. S. 477. The mandate upon the dismissal again commanded the District Court “that such proceedings be had in said cause, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had,' the said appeal notwithstanding.” This having gon…
  • Muscatine Lighting Co. v. City of Muscatine, 266 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1924)
    …Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423, 429; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 228 U. S. 339, 345, 346; Lincoln Gas & Electric Co. v. Lincoln, 253 U. S. 477.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw