Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/243/157/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:42:45+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 243 › Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co.
Leathe v. Thomas, supra; Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. German National Bank, 207 U. S. 270, 207 U. S. 275.
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires but brief notice. The due process clause does not take up the laws of the several states and make all questions pertaining to them constitutional questions, nor does it enable this Court to revise the decisions of the state courts upon questions of state law. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 158 U. S. 186; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 159 U. S. 112; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 168 U. S. 683-684. The questions presented, other than those relating to the validity of the state board's adjudication, all turned exclusively upon the law of the state, and the state court's decision of them is controlling. Preston v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 447; St. Louis & Kansas City Land Co. v. Kansas City, 241 U. S. 419, 241 U. S. 427; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 100, 230 U. S. 116. The reference to the equal protection clause evidently is inadvertent, for there is no claim of unwarranted or arbitrary discrimination.
* See also Sherman v. Grinnell, 144 U. S. 198, 144 U. S. 202; Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U. S. 658, 159 U. S. 660; Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, 181 U. S. 479, 181 U. S. 480.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.