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.
Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper et al.; Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper, 1911 — 220 U.S. 615 · caselaw · US
General
Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper et al.; Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper
220 U.S. 615·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. 991.
Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper et al.; Egbert H. Gold, Petitioner, v. William P. Cosper.
and No. 992.
April 17, 1911.
Mr. Otto Raymond Barnett for the petitioner.
Mr. Charles Neave for the respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petitions for writs of certiorari and writs of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied.