Court Opinion

ID: 8149713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 20:30:29.463559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:35.245587
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam:

The motion to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. (1) *601Meuller v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 711; Leach v. California, 287 U.S. 579, 580; Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393; Bandini v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 18; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501-503. (2) Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 315; Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 702. (3) Portland Ry. Co. v. Oregon Railroad Comm’n, 229 U.S. 397, 411, 412; Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U.S. 158, 164; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389, 394.
Messrs. Wm. E. Leahy and Wm. J. Hughes, Jr., for appellant. Mr. Fred M. Wylie for appellee.