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.
LEVY v. DANGEL, 1881 — 154 U.S. 671 · caselaw · US
General
LEVY v. DANGEL
154 U.S. 67138 L. Ed. 1093·Supreme Court of the United States·1881
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
LEVY v. DANGEL.
error to the supreme court of THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO.
No. 72.
Submitted November 4, 1881.
Decided November 14, 1881.
Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 TJ. S- 120, followed.
Mr. Fillmore Beall for plaintiff in error.
Mr. George Ainslie for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
The judgment in this case is affirmed. The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled,. and we cannot consider the questions presented on the motion for a new trial. Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120.