DAVIS
v.
TEAGUE
DAVIS
TEAGUE
281 U.S. 695
Supreme Court of the United States (1930)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Wabash R. R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie R. R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427; Zucht v. King, 260 U. S. 174; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182; 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. 191.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wickton v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (S.D. Miss. 1930)…he accident make it probable that it was caused by defendant’s negligence. Cincinnati, etc., Ry. Co. v. South Fork Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 139 F. 528, 533, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 533. Reliance is 'had by the plaintiffs upon Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Buford, 281 U. S. 695, 50, S. Ct. 248, 74 L. Ed. 1123, recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein the court dismissed an appeal from the Supreme- Court of Mississippi (122 So. 501) involving the question here presented. The appeal was not dismiss…
Authorities Cited
- Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1919)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1922)
- ROE v. Kansas ex rel. Smith, 278 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1929)
- Wabash R.R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1904)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1915)