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.
Valentine T. Collard, Administrator of the Estate of Samuel T. Collard, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, 1918 — 246 U.S. 653 · caselaw · US
General
Valentine T. Collard, Administrator of the Estate of Samuel T. Collard, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company
246 U.S. 653·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. 728.
Valentine T. Collard, Administrator of the Estate of Samuel T. Collard, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company.
In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.
Motion to dismiss submitted March 11, 1918.
Decided March 25, 1918.
Mr. Matthew O'Doherty for plaintiff in error.
Mr. William W. Crawford, Mr. Edmund F: Trábue and Mr. John C. Doolan for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) § 237, Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Congress of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 6, 39 Stat. 726; (2) Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173; Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S., 185; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission of Louisiana, 226 U. S. 99.