History
  • No items yet
midpage
Peacock v. Reinecke
271 U.S. 643
SCOTUS
1926
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want, of jurisdiction upon the authority of Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Toop v. Ulysses Land Company, 237 U. S. 580, 583; United Security Company v. American Fruit Produce Company, 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v, United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Power & Light Com*644pany v. Town of Graham, 263 U. S. 193, 195.

Mr. Herbert Pope, with whom Messrs. James F. Forstall and E. Barrett Prettyman were on the brief, for appellant. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt and Mr. Sewall Key were on the brief, for appellee.

Case Details

Case Name: Peacock v. Reinecke
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: Apr 26, 1926
Citation: 271 U.S. 643
Docket Number: No. 266
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.