Zimmerman v. Corson County

Supreme Court

Zimmerman v. Corson County

249 U.S. 593, 39 S. Ct. 390

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 5, 1919

DocketNo. 335

StatusPublished

This text of 249 U.S. 593 (Zimmerman v. Corson County) 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

Zimmerman v. Corson County, 249 U.S. 593, 39 S. Ct. 390 (1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) §237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726. (2) Consolidated Turnpike Co. [594]*594v. Norfolk, &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257.

Mr. William G. Porter for plaintiff in error. Mr. Clarence C. Caldwell for defendants in error.

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

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) §237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726. (2) Consolidated Turnpike Co. [594]*594v. Norfolk, &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257.

Mr. William G. Porter for plaintiff in error. Mr. Clarence C. Caldwell for defendants in error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 U.S. 593, 39 S. Ct. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-corson-county-scotus-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack