Alropa Corp. v. Kirchwehm
313 U.S. 549, 61 S. Ct. 1120
Opinion
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443; (2) Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485, 488; Live Oak Water Users’ Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 269 U. S. 354, 357-358; (3) Kryger v. Wilson, 242 U. S. 171, 176; Tinney v. Guy, 189 U. S. 335, [550]*550340; Johnson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 187 U. S. 491, 496.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Alropa Corp. v. Kirchwehm, 313 U.S. 549, 61 S. Ct. 1120 (1941).
313 U.S. 549 (Alropa Corp. v. Kirchwehm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hatton v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
521 F. Supp. 833 (S.D. Ohio, 1981)
United States v. Pink
315 U.S. 203 (Supreme Court, 1942)