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
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Lee; and Same v. Hanna
311 U.S. 609·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 299.
No. 300.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Lee; and Same v. Hanna.
October 14, 1940.
Messrs. Edward B. Downie and E. W. Clausen for appellant. Suzanne Chaljant Lighton for appellee in No. 299. Mr. Charles D. Atkinson for appellee in No. 300.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam ':]
Per Curiam ':
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question. Godchaux v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443.
Reported below: 200 Ark. 318; 140 S. W. 2d 132.