U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo

Supreme Court

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo

292 U.S. 611, 54 S. Ct. 858

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 28, 1934

DocketNo. 978; No. 979; No. 980; No. 981; No. 982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 U.S. 611 (U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo) 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

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toledo, 292 U.S. 611, 54 S. Ct. 858 (1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flannagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 317; American Ry. Express Co. v. Ken[612]*612tucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273; Comer v. Washington, ante, p. 610. Mr. Ray Martin for appellants in Nos. 978, 979, and 980. Mr. Harold W. Fraser for appellant in No. 981.

Mr. U. G. Denman for appellants in No. 982. Messrs. Ralph W. Doty and Earl F. Boxell for appellees.

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

Per Curiam:

The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 440; Seattle & Renton Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568, 570; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 165, 166; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flannagan, 263 U.S. 444, 451; Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316, 317; American Ry. Express Co. v. Ken[612]*612tucky, 273 U.S. 269, 272, 273; Comer v. Washington, ante, p. 610. Mr. Ray Martin for appellants in Nos. 978, 979, and 980. Mr. Harold W. Fraser for appellant in No. 981.

Mr. U. G. Denman for appellants in No. 982. Messrs. Ralph W. Doty and Earl F. Boxell for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 U.S. 611, 54 S. Ct. 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-toledo-scotus-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack