Home/Supreme Court/Hibbard v. Chicago

Hibbard v. Chicago

308 U.S. 505
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 9, 1939
DocketNo. 322
StatusPublished

This text of 308 U.S. 505 (Hibbard v. Chicago) 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
Hibbard v. Chicago, 308 U.S. 505 (1939).

Opinion

Per Curiam.:

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 461; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45, 50; O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U. S. 20, 26-27; Dunbar v. City of New York, 251 U. S. 516, 519; Booker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 118; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U. S. 444, 450; American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S [506]*506269, 273.

Messrs. Frederic Burnham and David F. Rosenthal for appellant. Messrs. Barnet Hodes, Joseph F. Grossman, and J. Herzl Segal for appellee.

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

Related

Patterson v. Colorado Ex Rel. Attorney General of Colo.
205 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Willoughby v. City of Chicago
235 U.S. 45 (Supreme Court, 1914)
O'NEIL v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.
242 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1916)
Dunbar v. City of New York
251 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court, 1920)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
261 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1923)
Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan
263 U.S. 444 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Central Land Co. v. Laidley
159 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 U.S. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hibbard-v-chicago-scotus-1939.