Dunn v. Ohio

Supreme Court

Dunn v. Ohio

282 U.S. 801, 51 S. Ct. 84

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 27, 1930·No. No. 443·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Messrs. Rufus S. Day and W. E. Minshall for appellant. Messrs. Gilbert Beitman, Frank R. Hubachek, Henry 8. Brainard, and Alfred Clum for respondent.

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225, 233; Morgan v. Georgia, 281 U. S. 691. The petition for a writ of certiorari in this cause is denied.

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

Per Curiam:

Messrs. Rufus S. Day and W. E. Minshall for appellant. Messrs. Gilbert Beitman, Frank R. Hubachek, Henry 8. Brainard, and Alfred Clum for respondent.

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U. S. 225, 233; Morgan v. Georgia, 281 U. S. 691. The petition for a writ of certiorari in this cause is denied.

Dunn v. Ohio, 282 U.S. 801, 51 S. Ct. 84 (1930).

Pincite

282 U.S. 801 (Dunn v. Ohio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related