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.
Railroad Commission of the State of California, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, 1918 — 245 U.S. 638 · caselaw · US
General
Railroad Commission of the State of California, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
245 U.S. 638·Supreme Court of the United States·1918
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. 391.
Railroad Commission of the State of California, Plaintiff in Error, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.
Argued January 18, 1918.
Decided January 21, 1918.
Mr. Douglas Brook-man and Mr. Max Thelen for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Robert Dunlap, Mr. E. W. Camp, Mr. E. S. Pillsbury and Mr. Gardiner Lathrop for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. InterState Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. McCafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162.