Purcell v. City of Lexington ex rel. Coyne

Supreme Court

Purcell v. City of Lexington ex rel. Coyne

253 U.S. 476, 40 S. Ct. 583

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 1, 1920

DocketNo. 708

StatusPublished

This text of 253 U.S. 476 (Purcell v. City of Lexington ex rel. Coyne) 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

Purcell v. City of Lexington ex rel. Coyne, 253 U.S. 476, 40 S. Ct. 583 (1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon thé authority of: (1) New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38, 39; Central Land Co. v, Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 111; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 116; Hubert v. New Orleans, 215 U. S. 170, 175; Missouri & Kansas Interurban By. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 187,190. (2) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, ,79; Brolan v. United States, 236 [477]*477U. S. 216, 218; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184.

Mr. George C. Webb and Mr. George R. Hunt for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Jesse I. Miller and Mr. Harry B. Miller for defendant in error.

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

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon thé authority of: (1) New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38, 39; Central Land Co. v, Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 111; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 116; Hubert v. New Orleans, 215 U. S. 170, 175; Missouri & Kansas Interurban By. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 187,190. (2) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, ,79; Brolan v. United States, 236 [477]*477U. S. 216, 218; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184.

Mr. George C. Webb and Mr. George R. Hunt for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Jesse I. Miller and Mr. Harry B. Miller for defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 U.S. 476, 40 S. Ct. 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-city-of-lexington-ex-rel-coyne-scotus-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack