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.
Ex parte AUTOMATIC SWITCH COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, PETITIONER, 1906 — 201 U.S. 166 · caselaw · US
General
Ex parte AUTOMATIC SWITCH COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, PETITIONER
201 U.S. 16650 L. Ed. 710·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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
Ex parte AUTOMATIC SWITCH COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, PETITIONER.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
No. 18,
Original.
Argued February 19, 1906.
Decided March 19, 1906.
Decided on authority of Ex parle National'Enameling and Stamping Co,, ante, p. 156.
Mr. Philip Mauro, with whom Mr. Harold Binney and Mr. C. A. L. Massie were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. W. Clyde Jones, with whom Air. John Ridout was-on the brief, for respondent.
For abstracts of arguments of counsel see ante, p. 157, 158.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brewer]
Mr. Justice Brewer
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case, though differing in its facts somewhat from the one immediately preceding, presents the same question, and the same order will be entered.