Ohio ex rel. Eastman v. Stuart

Supreme Court

Ohio ex rel. Eastman v. Stuart

291 U.S. 643

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 12, 1934·No. No. 740·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the reason that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Comm’rs, 146 U.S. 646, 657; Farson Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U.S. 268, [644]*644271; Doyle v. Atwell, 261 U.S. 590; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189, 190; McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U.S. 302, 303.

Messrs. Erwin R. Effler, Rufus H. Baker, and Harold W. Fraser for appellant. Messrs. Frazier Reams and J. S. Rhinefort for appellees.

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

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the reason that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Comm’rs, 146 U.S. 646, 657; Farson Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U.S. 268, [644]*644271; Doyle v. Atwell, 261 U.S. 590; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189, 190; McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U.S. 302, 303.

Messrs. Erwin R. Effler, Rufus H. Baker, and Harold W. Fraser for appellant. Messrs. Frazier Reams and J. S. Rhinefort for appellees.

Ohio ex rel. Eastman v. Stuart, 291 U.S. 643 (1934).

Pincite

291 U.S. 643 (Ohio ex rel. Eastman v. Stuart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related