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.
Mary Mulcare et al., Administrators, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of Chicago, 1916 — 241 U.S. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Mary Mulcare et al., Administrators, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of Chicago
241 U.S. 650·Supreme Court of the United States·1916
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. 312.
Mary Mulcare et al., Administrators, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of Chicago.
In error to the Supreme Court of the Sta'te of Illinois.
Argued April 20, 1916.
Decided April 24, 1916.
Mr. Hiram T. Gilbert and Mr. John W. Walsh for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Chester E. Cleveland for the defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22; Cincinnati Street Railway v. Snell, 193 U. S. 30, 35-37.