General
Matty McLaughlin v. United States
251 U.S. 541·Supreme Court of the United States·1920
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. 591.
Matty McLaughlin v. United States.
Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
Submitted January 5, 1920.
Decided January 12, 1920.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 402, 410-411; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 328-337; O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 37-38. (2) Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 171; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89. (3) In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 399-401. (4) Itow v. United States, 233 U. S. 581; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184. Mr. Daniel L. Cruice and Mr. Rob V. Phillips for plaintiff in error. The Solicitor General and Mr. A. F. Myers for the United States. Mr. Thos. H. Tracy and Mr. George D. Welles, by leave of court, filed a brief as amid curios.