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.
BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAILWAY v. DUNN, 1887 — 121 U.S. 182 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAILWAY v. DUNN
121 U.S. 18230 L. Ed. 885·Supreme Court of the United States·1887
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
BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAILWAY v. DUNN.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
Submitted April 1, 1887.
Decided April 4, 1887.
A case brought here in error from the Supreme Court of a state, in which the trial court refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal, and. in which the Supreme Court of the state affirmed that ruling, is within the spirit of Rule 32, 108 TJ. S. 591-2, relating to the advancement of causes, and the court, on motion in such a cause, advances it to be heard under the rules prescribed by Rule 6, 108 TJ. S. 574-5, in regard to motions to dismiss.
This was a motion to advance.
Mr. William Á. MeKenney for the motion.
No appearance in opposition.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is within the spirit, although not within the letter of Rule 32. The state court refused to let go its jurisdiction on a petition for removal, and the Supreme-Court of the'State has affirmed the ruling of the trial court to that effect. The only questioii for our consideration on the writ of error is whether this decision was right. The case is advanced to be brought on for hearing in the way provided by Rule 32, that is to say, under the rules prescribed by Rule 6 in regard to motions to dismiss writs of error or appeals.
Motion granted.