Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Whitmer v. Illinois, 1939 — 305 U.S. 576 · caselaw · US
General
Whitmer v. Illinois
305 U.S. 576·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 522.
Whitmer v. Illinois.
Decided January 3, 1939.
Mr. Wm. Scott Stewart for appellant.
Mr. Otto Kerner, Attorney General of Illinois, for appel-lee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (1) for the want of jurisdiction, § 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937); and (2) for want of a properly presented federal question. Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443.