Diener v. Lane
239 U.S. 632, 36 S. Ct. 219, 60 L. Ed. 477, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1422
Opinion
Dismissed for want of jurisdic-
tion upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380; (2) Lancaster v. Thacker, 239 17. S., ante, p. 625; Wallbrecht v. Ingram, 239 U. S., ante, p. 625; (3) Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 2), 212 U. S. 112, 118; Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102; Overton v. Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 31.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Diener v. Lane, 239 U.S. 632, 36 S. Ct. 219, 60 L. Ed. 477, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1422 (1915).
239 U.S. 632 (Diener v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 2)
212 U.S. 112 (Supreme Court, 1909)
Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co.
226 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Co.
228 U.S. 596 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of NY v. Cohen
234 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Overton v. Oklahoma
235 U.S. 31 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce
235 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court, 1914)