Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.

Supreme Court

Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.

275 U.S. 572, 48 S. Ct. 204

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 275 U.S. 540 →

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 3, 1928·No. No. 361·Published

Opinion

The motion for leave to file petition for a rehearing herein, made after the expiration of the twenty-five days within which, under rule 30, the petition ought to have been filed, is granted. [573] But the Court, after consideration of the .full brief filed with the motion and the other briefs considered on the original hearing of the petition for certiorari, again denies the petition.

Messrs. Kemper K. Knapp, John R. Cochran, Frank E. Tyler and Joseph A. O’Donnell for petitioners. Messrs. Chester I. Long, Lee Bond and Fred B. Silsbee for respondent. See p. 540.

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

The motion for leave to file petition for a rehearing herein, made after the expiration of the twenty-five days within which, under rule 30, the petition ought to have been filed, is granted. [573] But the Court, after consideration of the .full brief filed with the motion and the other briefs considered on the original hearing of the petition for certiorari, again denies the petition.

Messrs. Kemper K. Knapp, John R. Cochran, Frank E. Tyler and Joseph A. O’Donnell for petitioners. Messrs. Chester I. Long, Lee Bond and Fred B. Silsbee for respondent. See p. 540.

Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co., 275 U.S. 572, 48 S. Ct. 204 (1928).

Pincite

275 U.S. 572 (Irwin v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.