Healy v. Ratta
289 U.S. 701, 53 S. Ct. 522
Opinion
The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, as it appears from the supplemental record and was admitted at the bar that the application for interlocutory injunction was not pressed but was waived, and there is therefore no ground for an appeal to this Court. Smith v. Wilson, 273 U.S. 388, 391; Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10, 15.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Healy v. Ratta, 289 U.S. 701, 53 S. Ct. 522 (1933).
289 U.S. 701 (Healy v. Ratta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Renard v. Allen
391 P.2d 777 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
276 F.2d 525 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)
Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po
336 U.S. 368 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Phillips v. United States
312 U.S. 246 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Leiby v. City of Manchester
33 F. Supp. 842 (D. New Hampshire, 1940)
Western Maryland Ry. Co. v. United States
23 F. Supp. 554 (D. Maryland, 1938)
McCart v. Indianapolis Water Co.
302 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Lloyds America v. El Paso-Hudspeth Counties Road Dist. of Texas
107 S.W.2d 1008 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co.
292 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co.
292 U.S. 16 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Gypsy Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
6 F. Supp. 6 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1934)
Continental Oil Co. v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.
69 F.2d 19 (Tenth Circuit, 1934)
Healy v. Ratta
67 F.2d 554 (First Circuit, 1933)