HOLMES
v.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
HOLMES
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
281 U.S. 700
Supreme Court of the United States (1930)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Yamhill Electric Co. v. City of McMinnville, 280 U. S. 531; 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
-
Kentucky v. Indiana, 302 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1937)…Upon consideration of the Report of the State-of Indiana, submitted September 1, 1937, in accordance with clause 5 of the decree entered herein on May 19, 1930, [281 U. S. 700] which is received and ordered filed, wherein it is stated that the State of Indiana, through its Highway Commission, has complied with said decree and application is made to be relieved of the duty of filing-further reports, and the Commonwealth of…
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)
- Hunter v. Baash-Ross Tool Co., 280 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1930)
- Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Guidry, 280 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1930)