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.
Nordstrom (by his Next Friend Denning) v. Van de Vanter, Sheriff, etc., 1901 — 181 U.S. 615 · caselaw · US
General
Nordstrom (by his Next Friend Denning) v. Van de Vanter, Sheriff, etc.
181 U.S. 615·Supreme Court of the United States·1901
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. 388.
Nordstrom (by his Next Friend Denning) v. Van de Vanter, Sheriff, etc.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington.
Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted April 29, 1901.
Decided May 13, 1901.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Order affirmed with costs on the authority qí Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398; Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, and see State v. Nordstrom, 21 Wash. 403; Nordstrom v. Moyer, Sheriff, 170 U. S. 703; Nordstrom v. Washington, 164 U. S. 705; Craemer v. Washington, 168 U. S. 124; State v. Nordstrom, 7 Wash. 506.
Mr. Walter S. Fulton and Mr. Frank B. Crosthwaite for the motions. Mr. James Hamilton Lewis opposing.