Richards v. Oakley

Supreme Court

Richards v. Oakley

248 U.S. 541, 39 S. Ct. 134

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 23, 1918

DocketNo. 634

StatusPublished

This text of 248 U.S. 541 (Richards v. Oakley) 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

Richards v. Oakley, 248 U.S. 541, 39 S. Ct. 134 (1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257. (2) Goodrich v. Ferris, 244 U. S. 71, 81; Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Brolan [542]*542v. United States, 236 U. S. 216.

Mr. John G. Park for plaintiffs in error.. Mr. William S. Hogsett and Mr. Mont T. Prewitt 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 the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257. (2) Goodrich v. Ferris, 244 U. S. 71, 81; Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Brolan [542]*542v. United States, 236 U. S. 216.

Mr. John G. Park for plaintiffs in error.. Mr. William S. Hogsett and Mr. Mont T. Prewitt for defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 U.S. 541, 39 S. Ct. 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-oakley-scotus-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack