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
Christie et al. v. Broussard et al.
308 U.S. 514·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 458.
Christie et al. v. Broussard et al.
November 6, 1939.
Mr. Robert L. Cole for appellants. Messrs. E. B. Pickett, Will E. Or gain, and E. E. Easterling for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss! is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 308; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Home for Incurables v. City of New York, 187 U. S. 155, 158; (2) Roberts v. City of New York, 295 U. S. 264, 278; Seattle Ry. v. Linhoff, 231 U. S. 568, 570; Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 638; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U. S. 150, 162.