Joe Wysong, in Error v. The People of the State of California

276 U.S. 608, 72 L. Ed. 729, 48 S. Ct. 421, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 145
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 9, 1928
Docket877
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 276 U.S. 608 (Joe Wysong, in Error v. The People of the State of California) 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
Joe Wysong, in Error v. The People of the State of California, 276 U.S. 608, 72 L. Ed. 729, 48 S. Ct. 421, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 145 (1928).

Opinion

276 U.S. 608

48 S.Ct. 421

72 L.Ed. 729

Joe WYSONG, plaintiff in error,
v.
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 877.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 9, 1928

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record herein submitted, the court finds that this is not a case in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity; or where is properly drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of California, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity. It is, therefore, not a case which, under sec. 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937 (28 USCA § 344)) may be reviewed by this Court on writ of error, and this Court has no jurisdiction thereof under said section. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6, 40 S. Ct. 255, 64 L. Ed. 421.

Treating the writ of error as a petition for writ of certiorari under sec. 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), the clerk is directed to issue an order returnable April 30th next against Joe Wysong to show cause, if any there be, by printed return and printed brief, why the petition for certiorari should not be denied for lack of a substantial federal question shown in the record giving this court jurisdiction.

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

Related

Spring v. Caldwell
516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Texas, 1981)
Earl Edward Gandy v. State of Alabama
569 F.2d 1318 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Ortiz v. Suazo
570 P.2d 309 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1977)
Roe v. Ingraham
364 F. Supp. 536 (S.D. New York, 1973)
State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Lee
274 So. 2d 881 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
United States v. Dale Edmund Crowder
464 F.2d 1284 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Vito Giacalone v. William Lucas, Sheriff
445 F.2d 1238 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
United States Ex Rel. Parsons v. Adams
336 F. Supp. 340 (D. Connecticut, 1971)
State v. MORETTI
244 A.2d 499 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1968)
Ng Pui Yu v. United States
352 F.2d 626 (Ninth Circuit, 1965)
Andrew James Leonard v. United States
324 F.2d 911 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
Charles Sachs v. United States
281 F.2d 189 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)
United States v. Jules Gordon
242 F.2d 122 (Third Circuit, 1957)
United States v. El Rancho Adolphus Products, Inc.
140 F. Supp. 645 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
United States v. Pavoni
5 C.M.A. 591 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1955)
Schwartz v. United States
160 F.2d 718 (Ninth Circuit, 1947)
Harlan v. Sparks
125 F.2d 502 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 U.S. 608, 72 L. Ed. 729, 48 S. Ct. 421, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-wysong-in-error-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-scotus-1928.