Tananevicz v. Illinois
252 U.S. 568, 40 S. Ct. 346
Opinion
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, [569] 240 U. S. 240, 241; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257. (2) Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184. (3) Section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tananevicz v. Illinois, 252 U.S. 568, 40 S. Ct. 346 (1920).
252 U.S. 568 (Tananevicz v. Illinois) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Railway Co.
228 U.S. 326 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Brolan v. United States
236 U.S. 216 (Supreme Court, 1915)
United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co.
238 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1915)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Shepherd
240 U.S. 240 (Supreme Court, 1916)
Bilby v. Stewart
246 U.S. 255 (Supreme Court, 1918)
Sugarman v. United States
249 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1919)