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.
Missouri River Power Company, Petitioner, v. Louis Stadler et al., 1906 — 200 U.S. 621 · caselaw · US
General
Missouri River Power Company, Petitioner, v. Louis Stadler et al.
200 U.S. 621·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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. 560.
Missouri River Power Company, Petitioner, v. Louis Stadler et al.
February 26, 1906.
Mr. A. B. Browne, Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. Thomas C. Bach and Mr. E. C. Day for petitioner. Mr. Thorñas J. Walsh for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.