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.
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ora T. Shohoney, 1911 — 223 U.S. 705 · caselaw · US
General
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ora T. Shohoney
223 U.S. 705·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. 497.
Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ora T. Shohoney.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 29, 1911.
Decided October 23, 1911.
Mr. John A. Eaton for the plaintiff in error. Mr. I. N. Watson for the defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for .the want of jurisdiction. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116, 117; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 146; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361.