Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

305 U.S. 564, 59 S. Ct. 104, 83 L. Ed. 356, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 608
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 17, 1938·No. No. 368·Published

Opinion

Appeal from the Supreme Court of California.

The mo[565] tion to dismiss the appeal is granted as to the City of Los Angeles, and as to it the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Williams v. Mayor, 289 U. S. 36, 40; South Bend v. DeHaven, 302 U. S. 644. As to the remaining appellant, further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court and of the motion to dismiss or affirm is postponed to the merits.

Messrs. Ray L. Chesebro, Frederick von Schrader, William H. Neal, and Bourke Jones for appellants. Messrs. W. B. McKes-son and U. T. Clotfelter for appellees.

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

Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 305 U.S. 564, 59 S. Ct. 104, 83 L. Ed. 356, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 608 (1938).

305 U.S. 564 (Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co.
250 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court, 1919)
City of Trenton v. New Jersey
262 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1923)
Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore
289 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 1933)
South Bend v. DeHaven
302 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court, 1937)