History
  • No items yet
midpage
McLaughlin v. United States
251 U.S. 541
SCOTUS
1920
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 402, 410-411; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 328-337; O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 37-38. (2) Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 171; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89. (3) In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 399-401. (4) Itow v. United States, 233 U. S. 581; Sugarman v. United States, *542249 U. S. 182, 184. Mr. Daniel L. Cruice and Mr. Rob V. Phillips for plaintiff in error. The Solicitor General and Mr. A. F. Myers for the United States. Mr. Thos. H. Tracy and Mr. George D. Welles, by leave of court, filed a brief as amid curios.

Case Details

Case Name: McLaughlin v. United States
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: Jan 12, 1920
Citation: 251 U.S. 541
Docket Number: No. 591
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.