Starr v. New Mexico

Supreme Court

Starr v. New Mexico

254 U.S. 611, 41 S. Ct. 61

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 15, 1920

DocketNo. 80

StatusPublished

This text of 254 U.S. 611 (Starr v. New Mexico) 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

Starr v. New Mexico, 254 U.S. 611, 41 S. Ct. 61 (1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Error, to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. Argued November 9, 1920. Decided November 15, 1920. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 530; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. [612]*612144, 147. Mr. H.B. Holt with whom Mr. Frank Herron and Mr. W. A. Sutherland were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Harry S. Bowman, for defendant in error, submitted. - Mr. O. O. Askren was also on the brief.

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

Error, to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. Argued November 9, 1920. Decided November 15, 1920. Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526, 530; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. [612]*612144, 147. Mr. H.B. Holt with whom Mr. Frank Herron and Mr. W. A. Sutherland were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Harry S. Bowman, for defendant in error, submitted. - Mr. O. O. Askren was also on the brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 U.S. 611, 41 S. Ct. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-new-mexico-scotus-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack