General
George M. Diener et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. I. M. Lane et al.
239 U.S. 632·Supreme Court of the United States·1915
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. 689.
George M. Diener et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. I. M. Lane et al.
In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.
Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted November 29, 1915.
Decided December 6, 1915.
Mr. J. M. Collins and Mr. J. H. Hazelrigg for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. E. L. Worthington for the defendants in erron
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdic-
tion upon the authority of (1) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 234 U. S. 123, 137; Easterling Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 235 U. S. 380; (2) Lancaster v. Thacker, 239 17. S., ante, p. 625; Wallbrecht v. Ingram, 239 U. S., ante, p. 625; (3) Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 2), 212 U. S. 112, 118; Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102; Overton v. Oklahoma, 235 U. S. 31.