Hile v. City of Cleveland

Supreme Court

Hile v. City of Cleveland

266 U.S. 582, 45 S. Ct. 97

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 27, 1924·No. No. 84·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon authority of McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144. Mr. [583]*583George D. Hile pro se.

Mr. Carl F. Shuler, Mr. Alfred Clum and Mr. H. H. McKeehan appeared for defendant in error.

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

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon authority of McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S. 239; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144. Mr. [583]*583George D. Hile pro se.

Mr. Carl F. Shuler, Mr. Alfred Clum and Mr. H. H. McKeehan appeared for defendant in error.

Hile v. City of Cleveland, 266 U.S. 582, 45 S. Ct. 97 (1924).

Pincite

266 U.S. 582 (Hile v. City of Cleveland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related