NORUMBEGA CO.
v.
BENNETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
NORUMBEGA CO.
BENNETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
290 U.S. 598
Supreme Court of the United States (1933)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Per_curiam
[*598] Per Curiam:
The decree of the District Court herein is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court, as specially constituted, with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint for the want, of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the allegations of the bill do not set forth a substantial federal question. Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 576, 579; Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105; Ex parte Poresky, ante, p. 30.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cal. Water Serv. Co. v. City OF Redding, 304 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1938)…Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 302 U. S. 388, 391), it was the presence of the federal question which gave the court that authority,, and in its absence, through lack of substance, the court was not entitled to go further. In Norumbega Co. v. Bennett, 290 U. S. 598, the District Court of three judges, considering that a federal constitutional question was involved, passed upon the question of the' construction of the state' statute and, denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the. bill…
Authorities Cited
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1933)
- Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1904)