United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker

Supreme Court

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker

235 U.S. 683, 35 S. Ct. 201

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 26, 1914

DocketNo. 302

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 U.S. 683 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Poetker, 235 U.S. 683, 35 S. Ct. 201 (1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of [684]*684(1) First National Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341, 346; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589; May v. Illinois, 232 U. S. 720; (2) McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 326, 334; City of Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 234 U. S. 751.

Mr. Charles Martindale for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Frank S. Roby and Mr.-Ward H. Watson for the 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 [684]*684(1) First National Bank v. Estherville, 215 U. S. 341, 346; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589; May v. Illinois, 232 U. S. 720; (2) McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 326, 334; City of Lewiston v. Chamberlain, 234 U. S. 751.

Mr. Charles Martindale for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Frank S. Roby and Mr.-Ward H. Watson for the defendant in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 U.S. 683, 35 S. Ct. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-poetker-scotus-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack