Potter v. Maybury

Supreme Court

Potter v. Maybury

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

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 18, 1932·No. No. 325·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

284 U.S. 593 (Potter v. Maybury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related