Christie v. Broussard
308 U.S. 514, 60 S. Ct. 145
Opinion
The motion to dismiss! is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 308; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 155, 158; (2) Roberts v. City of New York, 295 U. S. 264, 278; Seattle Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568, 570; Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 638; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, 162.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Christie v. Broussard, 308 U.S. 514, 60 S. Ct. 145 (1939).
308 U.S. 514 (Christie v. Broussard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Home for Incurables v. City of New York
187 U.S. 155 (Supreme Court, 1902)
Mutual Life Insurance v. McGrew
188 U.S. 291 (Supreme Court, 1903)
Cross Lake Shooting and Fishing Club v. Louisiana
224 U.S. 632 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Ross v. Oregon
227 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co. v. Washington Ex Rel. Linhoff
231 U.S. 568 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal
251 U.S. 179 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Roberts v. New York City
295 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court, 1935)