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
Rust v. Pratt, Sheriff, et al.; Jennings v. Same; Abbott v. Same; and Tigert v. Same
303 U.S. 621·Supreme Court of the United States·1938
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. 768.
No. 769.
No. 770.
No. 771.
Rust v. Pratt, Sheriff, et al.; Jennings v. Same; Abbott v. Same; and Tigert v. Same.
Decided February 28, 1938.
Mr. Mortimer Riemer for appellants. No appearance for appellees.
[MAJORITY]
Per Curiam:
The appeals herein are dismissed (1) for the reason that the judgments sought to be reviewed are based upon a non-federal ground adequate to support them, Doyle v. Atwell, 261 U. S. 690; Cox v. Colorado, 282 U. S. 807; Woolsey v. Best, 299 U. S. 1; (2) for the want of a substantial federal question, Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 106, 111-114; Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319.
Reported below: 157 Ore. 505; 72 P. 2d 533.