Saenger Realty Corp. v. Grosjean

Supreme Court

Saenger Realty Corp. v. Grosjean

310 U.S. 613, 60 S. Ct. 1089

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 27, 1940

DocketNo. 998

StatusPublished

This text of 310 U.S. 613 (Saenger Realty Corp. v. Grosjean) 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

Saenger Realty Corp. v. Grosjean, 310 U.S. 613, 60 S. Ct. 1089 (1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) [614]*614Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443. (2) Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 32; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black 599, 603; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 362.

Mr. Charles Rosen for appellant. Messrs. F. A. Blanche and E. Leland Richardson for ap-pellee.

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

Per Curiam:

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) [614]*614Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443. (2) Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30, 32; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black 599, 603; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U. S. 358, 362.

Mr. Charles Rosen for appellant. Messrs. F. A. Blanche and E. Leland Richardson for ap-pellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 U.S. 613, 60 S. Ct. 1089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saenger-realty-corp-v-grosjean-scotus-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack