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.
Peter Sigvart PETERSON, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 1927 — 21 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
General
Peter Sigvart PETERSON, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
21 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
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
Peter Sigvart PETERSON, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
May 18, 1927.
No. 7483.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
George W. Peterson, of St. Paul, Minn., and James H. Ready, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff in error.
N. H. Loomis, C. A. Magaw, and Thomas W. Bockes, all of Omaha, Neb., for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Writ of error dismissed, without costs to either party in this court, per stipulation of parties.