Witzelberg v. Cincinnati

302 U.S. 635, 58 S. Ct. 22
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 11, 1937·No. No. 150·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Per Curiam:

The motion of the appellees to dis[636] miss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (1) for the want of a properly presented federal question. Clarke v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, 172; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 214 U. S. 191, 193; Hiawassee Power Co. v. Carolina-Tenn. Co., 252 U. S. 341, 343; (2) for the want of a substantial federal question, Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 262; North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U. S. 276, 283.

Mr. Walter M. Schoenle for appellant. Mr. John D. Ellis for appellees.

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

Witzelberg v. Cincinnati, 302 U.S. 635, 58 S. Ct. 22 (1937).

302 U.S. 635 (Witzelberg v. Cincinnati) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adler v. Cincinnati
303 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Kansas Farmers Union Royalty Co. v. Shaffer
303 U.S. 623 (Supreme Court, 1938)