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.
Kansas Farmers' Union Royalty Co. et al. v. Hushaw, 1939 — 307 U.S. 615 · caselaw · US
General
Kansas Farmers' Union Royalty Co. et al. v. Hushaw
307 U.S. 615·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 975.
Kansas Farmers’ Union Royalty Co. et al. v. Hushaw.
Decided June 5, 1939.
Messrs. B. I. Litowich, L. E. Clevenger, and S. H. King for appellants. No appearance for appellee.-
[MAJORITY — Per■ Curiam:]
Per■ Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed” for want1-of a substantial federal question. (1) Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280, 289-290; Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514, 520; (2) Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451, 456-457; Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U. S. 375; (3) Bell’s Gap Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159.