Osment v. Pitcairn

Supreme Court

Osment v. Pitcairn

317 U.S. 587, 63 S. Ct. 21

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 12, 1942

DocketNo. 140

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 317 U.S. 587 (Osment v. Pitcairn) 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

Osment v. Pitcairn, 317 U.S. 587, 63 S. Ct. 21 (1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The last clause of § 4 of the 1890 amendments to Article VI of the Missouri constitution provides that “when a division [of the Supreme Court of Missouri] in which a cause is pending shall so order, the cause shall be transferred to the court for its decision.” In Scheufler v. Manufacturing Lumbermen’s Underwriters, decided July 7, 1942, the Supreme Court of Missouri stated that under this clause “either division, on application or its own motion and for reasons deemed sufficient though not enumerated in the section, may order a cause transferred to the court en banc.” 349 Mo. 855, 857; 163 S. W. 2d 749, 750. In this case petitioner made no application to transfer the cause from Division Two, where it was heard and decided, to the court en banc. As it does not appear that petitioner has exhausted the appellate review provided by state law, the petition for certiorari must be denied for want of jurisdiction. Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98, and cases cited.

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

Per Curiam:

The last clause of § 4 of the 1890 amendments to Article VI of the Missouri constitution provides that “when a division [of the Supreme Court of Missouri] in which a cause is pending shall so order, the cause shall be transferred to the court for its decision.” In Scheufler v. Manufacturing Lumbermen’s Underwriters, decided July 7, 1942, the Supreme Court of Missouri stated that under this clause “either division, on application or its own motion and for reasons deemed sufficient though not enumerated in the section, may order a cause transferred to the court en banc.” 349 Mo. 855, 857; 163 S. W. 2d 749, 750. In this case petitioner made no application to transfer the cause from Division Two, where it was heard and decided, to the court en banc. As it does not appear that petitioner has exhausted the appellate review provided by state law, the petition for certiorari must be denied for want of jurisdiction. Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98, and cases cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 U.S. 587, 63 S. Ct. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osment-v-pitcairn-scotus-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack