History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hibbard v. Chicago
308 U.S. 505
SCOTUS
1939
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.:

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 461; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45, 50; O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U. S. 20, 26-27; Dunbar v. City of New York, 251 U. S. 516, 519; Booker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 118; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U. S. 444, 450; American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S *506269, 273.

Messrs. Frederic Burnham and David F. Rosenthal for appellant. Messrs. Barnet Hodes, Joseph F. Grossman, and J. Herzl Segal for appellee.

Case Details

Case Name: Hibbard v. Chicago
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: Oct 9, 1939
Citation: 308 U.S. 505
Docket Number: No. 322
Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.