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.
Menasha Wooden Ware Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway, 1917 — 245 U.S. 633 · caselaw · US
General
Menasha Wooden Ware Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway
245 U.S. 633·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 83.
Menasha Wooden Ware Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway.
In error to the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, State, of Wisconsin.
Argued November 23, 1917.
Decided December 10, 1917.
Mr. A. E. Thompson and Mr. J. C. Thompson for plaintiff in error, submitted.
Mr. William A. Hayes and Mr. Alfred H. Bright for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with -.costs upon the authority of Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 80 et seq.; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467; Portland Railway &c. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon, 229 U. S. 397, 412, 413; New York Central & Hudson River R. r. Co. v. Gray, 239 U. S. 583.