Sanger v. New York

Supreme Court

Sanger v. New York

251 U.S. 537, 40 S. Ct. 55

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 17, 1919

DocketNo. 75

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 U.S. 537 (Sanger v. New York) 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

Sanger v. New York, 251 U.S. 537, 40 S. Ct. 55 (1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) California Powder Works v¿ Davis, 151 U. ,S. 389, 393; Sayward v. [538]*538Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 86. (2) Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664; and see El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. Carraway, 245 U. S. 643. Mr. Jonah J. Goldstein for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry G. Anderson, with whom Mr. Harry E. Lewis was on the brief, 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) California Powder Works v¿ Davis, 151 U. ,S. 389, 393; Sayward v. [538]*538Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 86. (2) Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664; and see El Paso Sash & Door Co. v. Carraway, 245 U. S. 643. Mr. Jonah J. Goldstein for plaintiff in error. Mr. Harry G. Anderson, with whom Mr. Harry E. Lewis was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 U.S. 537, 40 S. Ct. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanger-v-new-york-scotus-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack