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.
Clarence H. Venner et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Denver Union Water Company et al., 1911 — 219 U.S. 583 · caselaw · US
General
Clarence H. Venner et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Denver Union Water Company et al.
219 U.S. 583·Supreme Court of the United States·1911
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. 216.
Clarence H. Venner et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Denver Union Water Company et al.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado.
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 30, 1911.
Decided February 20, 1911.
Mr. Elijah N. Zoline and Mr. Caldwell Yeoman for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Arthur H. Van Brunt, Mr. Gerald Hughes, Mr. Frederick D. Van Vorst and Mr. Joel F. Vaile for defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 100; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas, 212 U. S. 112; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563.