McLaughlin v. United States
This text of 251 U.S. 541 (McLaughlin v. United States) 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.
Opinion
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 402, 410-411; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 328-337; O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 37-38. (2) Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 171; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89. (3) In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 399-401. (4) Itow v. United States, 233 U. S. 581; Sugarman v. United States, [542]*542249 U. S. 182, 184. Mr. Daniel L. Cruice and Mr. Rob V. Phillips for plaintiff in error. The Solicitor General and Mr. A. F. Myers for the United States. Mr. Thos. H. Tracy and Mr. George D. Welles, by leave of court, filed a brief as amid curios.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
251 U.S. 541, 40 S. Ct. 178, 64 L. Ed. 405, 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-united-states-scotus-1920.