Wick v. Superior Court

Supreme Court

Wick v. Superior Court

278 U.S. 575, 49 S. Ct. 94, 73 L. Ed. 515, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 19

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 10, 1928·No. No. 87·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as ¿mended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), because the judgment sought to be reviewed is not final within the meaning of this section, however it may be regarded in state procedure; Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coates Fordney Logging Co., 243 U. S. 251; Washington ex rel. McPherson [576]*576Bros. Co. v. Superior Court, 274 U. S. 726; Washington ex rel. Terry v. Superior Court, 276 U. S. 626.

Mr. Joseph D. Sullivan for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. F. G. Dorety, Frank. T. Post, Edwin C. Matthias, Charles S. Albert, and Thomas Balmer for defendants in error.

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

Per Curiam:

The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, as ¿mended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), because the judgment sought to be reviewed is not final within the meaning of this section, however it may be regarded in state procedure; Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coates Fordney Logging Co., 243 U. S. 251; Washington ex rel. McPherson [576]*576Bros. Co. v. Superior Court, 274 U. S. 726; Washington ex rel. Terry v. Superior Court, 276 U. S. 626.

Mr. Joseph D. Sullivan for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. F. G. Dorety, Frank. T. Post, Edwin C. Matthias, Charles S. Albert, and Thomas Balmer for defendants in error.

Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U.S. 575, 49 S. Ct. 94, 73 L. Ed. 515, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 19 (1928).

Pincite

278 U.S. 575 (Wick v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related