Biddle v. Luvisch

266 U.S. 173, 45 S. Ct. 88, 69 L. Ed. 229, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2906

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: November 17, 1924
• Docket: 96
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This certificate fails to meet often announced requirements and must be dismissed. It does not submit one or more definite questions of law arising upon the record but, in effect, asks decision of the whole case. Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 700, 704; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63, 65; United States v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512, 513; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 106, 107.

The constantly increasing demands upon us make it highly important that only matters which are both substantial and in approved form should be presented.

Certificate dismissed.