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
District of Columbia v. Emerson
130 U.S. 22932 L. Ed. 923·Supreme Court of the United States·1889
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
District of Columbia v. Emerson,
No. 183.
In error to the' District of Columbia.
Argued March 6, 1889.
Decided April 1, 1889.
Mr. A. G. Biddle for plaintiff in error.
Mr. S. S. Renkle for defendant.in.error.
[MAJORITY — Me. Chief Justice Fullee]
Me. Chief Justice Fullee
said that the same questions were presented upon the record in this ease as in the District of Columbia, Plaintiff in Error v. Lawrence E. Gannon, No. 182, just decided, and that for the reasons there given the writ of error must be Dismissed.