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.
General
Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo C. Lessenden
225 U.S. 696·Supreme Court of the United States·1912
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. 949.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alonzo C. Lessenden.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Motioii to dismiss or affirm or to place on summary docket submitted March 18, 1912.
Decided April 29, 1912.
Mr. M. L. Clardy for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W. F. Guthrie for the defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Pet Curiam.]
Pet Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U. S. 432, 437; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 118.