ROSENBERG
v.
WISCONSIN
ROSENBERG
WISCONSIN
290 U.S. 600
Supreme Court of the United States (1933)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. (1) Meuller v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 711; Leach v. California, 287 U.S. 579, 580; Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393; Bandini v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 18; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501-503. (2) Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 315; Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 702. (3) Portland Ry. Co. v. Oregon Railroad Comm’n, 229 U.S. 397, 411, 412; Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158, 164; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389, 394.
Messrs. Wm. E. Leahy and Wm. J. Hughes, Jr., for appellant. Mr. Fred M. Wylie for appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, 393 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1968)…e Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453 (1911); St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518 (1916); Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U. S. 249 (1931), 290 U. S. 600 (1933). The Court’s holdings in these cases were also reaffirmed, in dictum, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, 782 (1945). Ark. Laws 1907, Act 116, Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 73-720 through 73-722 (1957 Repl. Vol.). Ark. Laws 1913, Act 67…
-
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Chicago, 382 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1966)…learly expressed purpose so to do Congress will not be held to have intended to prevent the exertion of the police power of the States for the regulation of the number of men to be employed in such crews.” 283 U. S., at 256. See also the same case, 290 U. S. 600. In view of Norwood and the two preceding cases, all of which sustained the constitutionality of the Arkansas statutes over charges of federal pre-emption, the question' presented to this Court is whether in adding the 1963 compulsory arbitration A…1 / 2
-
Dill v. Colorado, 292 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1934)…Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Rosenberg v. Wisconsin, 290 U.S. 600, 601; Mueller v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 711; Leach v. California, 287 U.S. 579, 590; Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393; Bandini v. [*610] Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 18; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S.…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1896)
- Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1931)
- Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1932)
- Hygrade Provision Co., Inc. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1925)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1924)
- Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8 (U.S. 1931)
- Portland Railway v. R.R. Comm'n of Or., 229 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1913)
- Pure Oil Co. v. State of Minn., 248 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1918)
- L'Hote v. Crowell, 286 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1932)
- Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1932)