Hammond v. Burbank

299 U.S. 519, 57 S. Ct. 316
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 4, 1937·No. No. 561·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed (1) for the reason that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it, Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679, 688, 689; McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302, 303; Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 209, 210; (2) in so far as a federal question is sought to be presented, for the want of a substantial federal question, Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568, [520]*520570; Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 165, 166; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316, 317; Ham v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, ante, p. 505.

Mr. E. C. Pyle for appellants. Mr. Leon Thomas David for appellees.

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

Hammond v. Burbank, 299 U.S. 519, 57 S. Ct. 316 (1937).

299 U.S. 519 (Hammond v. Burbank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huff v. United States
22 F. Supp. 309 (E.D. Kentucky, 1938)