Cady v. Detroit

Supreme Court

Cady v. Detroit

309 U.S. 620, 60 S. Ct. 470

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 29, 1940

DocketNo. 622

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 309 U.S. 620 (Cady v. Detroit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cady v. Detroit, 309 U.S. 620, 60 S. Ct. 470 (1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. (1) Euclid v. Ambler, 272 U. S. 365; Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526; (2) Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160-161; Standard Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 550; Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 [621]*621U. S. 71, 88; (3) Caperton v. Boywer, 14 Wall. 216, 236-237; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 442-443.

Mr. Edward N. Barnard for appellants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. (1) Euclid v. Ambler, 272 U. S. 365; Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526; (2) Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160-161; Standard Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 550; Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 [621]*621U. S. 71, 88; (3) Caperton v. Boywer, 14 Wall. 216, 236-237; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 442-443.

Mr. Edward N. Barnard for appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 U.S. 620, 60 S. Ct. 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cady-v-detroit-scotus-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack