Home/Supreme Court/County of Tuolumne v. Railroad Commission of California

County of Tuolumne v. Railroad Commission of California

267 U.S. 584, 45 S. Ct. 461
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 16, 1925
DocketNo. 281
StatusPublished

This text of 267 U.S. 584 (County of Tuolumne v. Railroad Commission of California) 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
County of Tuolumne v. Railroad Commission of California, 267 U.S. 584, 45 S. Ct. 461 (1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the [585]*585act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat: 726; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5-6; (2) Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong, 150 U. S. 85, 88; Erie R. R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 154; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Woodford, 234 U. S. 46, 51.

Mr. William Grant, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. A. P. Cutten and Mr. Carl I. Wheat, with whom Mr. Hugh Gordon and Mr. Wm. B. Bosley were on the brief, for defendants in error.

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

Related

Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong
150 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Erie Railroad v. Purdy
185 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1902)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Woodford
234 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton
252 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 U.S. 584, 45 S. Ct. 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-tuolumne-v-railroad-commission-of-california-scotus-1925.