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.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John M. Bolch, 1916 — 242 U.S. 616 · caselaw · US
General
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John M. Bolch
242 U.S. 616·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. 474.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John M. Bolch.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
Motion to dismiss submitted November 13, 1916.
Decided December 4, 1916.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Haseltine v. Central National Bank, 183 U. S. 130; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission of Louisiana, 226 U. S. 99; Thompson v. St. Louis, 241 U. S. 637. Mr. Heman H. Field for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Merritt J. Gordon for the defendant in error.