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.
Dunn et al. v. Ohio, 1943 — 318 U.S. 739 · caselaw · US
General
Dunn et al. v. Ohio
318 U.S. 739·Supreme Court of the United States·1943
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. 77.
Dunn et al. v. Ohio.
Argued January 7, 1943.
Decided February 8, 1943.
Mr. James H. Nacey, with whom Mr. Meyer A. Cook was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Kenneth L. Sater, with whom Messrs. Thomas J. Herbert, Attorney General of Ohio, and Frank T. Cullitan were, on the brief, for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502; Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236; Federal Power Comm’n v. Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575, 582-83; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374.