Twin Falls County v. Henderson

305 U.S. 568, 59 S. Ct. 149
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 7, 1938·No. No. 409·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dis[569] missed (1) for the want of a substantial federal question, Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Williams v. Mayor, 289 U. S. 36, 40; Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, ante, p. 564; (2) for the reason that the judgment sought herein to be reviewed is based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support it, Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361, 366; Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, 479; Gauss v. Detroit Trust Co., 297 U. S. 695.

Mr. James R. Bothwell for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

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

Twin Falls County v. Henderson, 305 U.S. 568, 59 S. Ct. 149 (1938).

305 U.S. 568 (Twin Falls County v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Fire Fighters Local 279 v. Kingham
420 P.2d 254 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1966)