Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia

Supreme Court

Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia

137 U.S. 62, 11 S. Ct. 4, 34 L. Ed. 572, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2066

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 27, 1890

Docket10

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 137 U.S. 62 (Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia) 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

Washington Market Co. v. District of Columbia, 137 U.S. 62, 11 S. Ct. 4, 34 L. Ed. 572, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2066 (1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing the bill of *63 complaint filed by appellant therein, the object of the bill having been to restrain the defendants from selling, or attempting to sell, certain property of complainant, on account of certain assessments for street improvements, and also to cancel and annul two tax lien certificates therein named,; and counsel for appellant having stated in open court that such assessments and lien certificates have been, pending this appeal, quashed and annulled at law by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and that only the disposition of costs is involved herein, it is ordered that said appeal be

Mr. William Birney for appellant. Mr. George G. Hazelton and Mr. S. T. Thomas for appellee.

Dismissed without costs to either party.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing the bill of *63 complaint filed by appellant therein, the object of the bill having been to restrain the defendants from selling, or attempting to sell, certain property of complainant, on account of certain assessments for street improvements, and also to cancel and annul two tax lien certificates therein named,; and counsel for appellant having stated in open court that such assessments and lien certificates have been, pending this appeal, quashed and annulled at law by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and that only the disposition of costs is involved herein, it is ordered that said appeal be

Mr. William Birney for appellant. Mr. George G. Hazelton and Mr. S. T. Thomas for appellee.

Dismissed without costs to either party.

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Cross-Appellee v. Kenneth R. Cunningham, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, L.J. Carter and Mark W. Perrin, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Salvador Esparza and Edward F. Fritcher, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Wilford H. Hairell and A. Mitchell Robertson, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants- Cross-Appellees v. Allied Bank of Texas, Third Party Defendant-Cross-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Metropolitan Contract Services, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Cross-Appellee

716 F.2d 1455 (Third Circuit, 1983)

Donovan v. Cunningham

716 F.2d 1455 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)

Edgar v. Mite Corp.

457 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court, 1982)

United States v. Ford

650 F.2d 1141 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

Commonwealth v. Aguayo

80 P.R. 534 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1958)

Estado Libre Asociado v. Aguayo

80 P.R. Dec. 552 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1958)

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hamilton

141 P. 199 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)

Keely v. Ophir Hill Consol. Mining Co.

169 F. 601 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)

Wedekind v. Bell

69 P. 612 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1902)

Hogan v. City of La Crosse

80 N.W. 105 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)

Kimball v. Kimball

174 U.S. 158 (Supreme Court, 1899)

In re Kaeppler

75 N.W. 253 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 U.S. 62, 11 S. Ct. 4, 34 L. Ed. 572, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-market-co-v-district-of-columbia-scotus-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack