BIDDLE, WARDEN OF THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS,
v.
LUVISCH
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
This certificate fails to meet often announced requirements and must be dismissed. It does not submit one or more definite questions of law arising upon the record but, in effect, asks decision of the whole case. Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 700, 704; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63, 65; United States v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512, 513; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 106, 107.
The constantly increasing demands upon us make it highly important that only matters which are both substantial and in approved form should be presented.
Certificate dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Dublin, 290 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1933)…Slyke, 116 U.S. 699, 703-704; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426, 432, 433, 434; Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U.S. 444, 451, 454; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U.S. 101, 106, 107; United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 66; Biddle v. Luvisch, 266 U.S. 173, 174, 175.…
-
Guardian Sav. & Tr. Co. v. Dillard, 15 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1926)…have increased these rates for any prospective year and that until so changed, those rates thus established were legally fixed and collectible. House v. Road Improv. Dist. No. 2, 158 Ark. 330, 346, 251 S. W. 12 (affirmed 266 U. S. 175, 45 S. Ct. 60, 69 L. Ed. 229); Jefferson v. Conway County Bridge Dist., 147 Ark. 518, 227 S. W. 769. As the receiver was empowered, under that act, to collect assessments and as the rates, for these years sought to be collected by the receiver, were identical with those so fix…
-
Miller Cnty. Hwy. & Bridge Dist. v. Standard Pipe Line Co., Inc., 19 F.2d 3 (8th Cir. 1927)…diminished. Full right of appeal from the action of the assessors was given to the commission, and thence to the county court. Compare House v. Rd. Imp. Dist. No. 2, Conway County, Ark., 158 Ark. 330, 251 S. W. 12, aft., 266 U. S. 175, 45 S. Ct. 60, 69 L. Ed. 229. In 1922, and after the assessment of benefits had been made, the appellee here, plaintiff below, purchased from the Prairie Pipe Line Company all of its property within the district and the state, and is now owner of certain pipe lines laid beneat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jewell v. Knight, 123 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1887)
- Cross v. Evans, 167 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1897)
- Chicago v. Williams, 205 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1907)
- United States v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1897)
- Hallowell v. United States, 209 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1908)
- Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1886)