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.
BOBB v. JAMISON, 1894 — 155 U.S. 416 · caselaw · US
General
BOBB v. JAMISON
155 U.S. 41639 L. Ed. 206·Supreme Court of the United States·1894
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
BOBB v. JAMISON.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
No. 267.
Submitted December 10, 1894.
Decided December 17, 1894.
Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, affirmed and followed.
Motion to dismiss. This cause, after trial below, was argued before the Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2, in banc. The organization of that court is set forth in the statement of facts in Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377. After the court had given its opinion and announced its judgment, the plaintiffs in error for the first time raised a Federal question in the cause in a motion for a rehearing. That motion being denied, the case was brought here by writ of error, which writ the defendants in error moved to dismiss.
Mr. Thomas J. Rowe in support of the motion.
Mr. Michael Kinealxj, (with whom was Mr. James B. Kinealy on the brief,) opposing.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice :]
The Chief Justice :
The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, and cases cited.
Writ of error dismissed.