VINYARD ET AL.
v.
NORTH SIDE CANAL CO. ET AL.
VINYARD ET AL.
NORTH SIDE CANAL CO. ET AL.
280 U.S. 520
Supreme Court of the United States (1929)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed and certiorari is-denied for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question on the authority of St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Shephard, 240 U. S. 240; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Ry., 228 U. S. 326.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. The Carter OIL Co., 218 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1954)…. 272, 253 P. 2d 252, 256 P. 2d 514, 35 A.L.R.2d 1412; Clinton v. Miller, 124 Mont. 463, 226 P. 2d 487; Peterson v. Paulson, 24 Wash.2d 166, 163 P. 2d 830; California Delta Farms v. Chinese American Farms, 207 Cal. 298, 278 P. 227, appeal dismissed, 280 U.S. 520, 50 S.Ct. 67, 74 L.Ed. 590. Only vested rights are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. 12 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 650. Magnolia had no vested right as against the State. Whatever title it had was contingent upon the…
-
Arneson v. United Irrigation Co., 284 U.S. 592 (U.S. 1932)…*593] & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268; Browne v. Union Pacific R. Co., 267 U. S. 255; Live Oak Water Users’ Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 269 U. S. 354, 359; Security National Bank v. Twinde, 278 U. S. 659; Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 280 U. S. 520); and for the want of a substantial federal question (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427; C. A. King & Co. v. Horton, 276 U. S. 600; Bank of Indianola v. Miller, 276 U. S. 605; Roe v. Kansas, 278 U. S. 1…
Authorities Cited
- Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1920)
- ST. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1916)
- Consol. Tpk. Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Ry. Co., 228 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1913)