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.
CLAY CENTER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CITY OF CLAY CENTER, 1909 — 212 U.S. 564 · caselaw · US
General
CLAY CENTER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CITY OF CLAY CENTER
212 U.S. 564·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
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
CLAY CENTER ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CITY OF CLAY CENTER.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS.
No. 630.
Motion to dismiss.
Submitted January 4, 1909.
Decided January 11, 1909.
.Writ of error to review a judgment of the state court dismissed. The Federal question was raised for the first time on petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of the State, and that court declined to pass on it as having come too late.
Mr. A. E. Crane, Mr. F. B. Dawes, Mr. C. P. Rutherford and Mr. R. C. Miller, for defendant in error in support of motion to dismiss.
Mr. C. C. Coleman and Mr. Frank L. Williams for plaintiff in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Capital National Bank of Lincoln v. First National Bank of Cadiz, 172 U. S. 425; Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 308; White v. Bird, 45 Kansas, 759.