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