Potter v. Maybury

Supreme Court

Potter v. Maybury

284 U.S. 593, 52 S. Ct. 202

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 18, 1932

DocketNo. 325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 U.S. 593 (Potter v. Maybury) 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

Potter v. Maybury, 284 U.S. 593, 52 S. Ct. 202 (1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

The appeal herein is dismissed for

Mr. George H. Rummens, with whom Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe was on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. John H. Dunbar, Attorney General of Washington, and Lester T. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief for appellees.

the reason that the decree of the state court here sought to be reviewed was based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302, 303; People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell, 261 U. S. 590, 591, 592; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 186, 190.

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

Per Curiam:.

The appeal herein is dismissed for

Mr. George H. Rummens, with whom Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe was on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. John H. Dunbar, Attorney General of Washington, and Lester T. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief for appellees.

the reason that the decree of the state court here sought to be reviewed was based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it. McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302, 303; People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell, 261 U. S. 590, 591, 592; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 186, 190.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 U.S. 593, 52 S. Ct. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-maybury-scotus-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack