WESTON
v.
BEAVER-REMMERS-GRAHAM CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1930-12-08
No. 30
282 U.S. 809 Supreme Court of the United States (1930) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismisséd for the want of a substantial federal question. Wabash Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie 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

  • Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943)
    …, in the exercise of its discretion, has in appropriate circumstances declined to issue the writ to a district court, but without prejudice to an application to the circuit court of appeals (Ex parte Apex Mfg. Co., 274 U. S. 725; Ex parte Daugherty, 282 U. S. 809; Ex parte Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 286 U. S. 533), which likewise has power under § 262 of the Judicial Code to issue the writ. McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268; Adams v. U. S. ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269. After a full review of the tra…
  • Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1932)
    …on was vested in the circuit court of appeals, this court, in the exercise of its discretion, has declined to issue the writ and relegated the applicant to his remedy in that court. Ex parte Apex Electric Mfg. Co., 274 U. S. 725; Ex parte Daugherty, 282 U. S. 809; Ex parte Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 286 U. S. 533. The rule deducible from the later decisions, and which we now affirm, is, that this court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw