Witzelberg v. Cincinnati
302 U.S. 635, 58 S. Ct. 22
Opinion
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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.
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)