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
The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County Cal. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert H. Thompson
196 U.S. 637·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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. 156.
The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County Cal. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Robert H. Thompson.
In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 24, 1905.
Decided January 30, 1905.
Case below, 122 Fed. Rep. 860; 116 Fed. Rep. 832.
Mr. John D. Works for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. C. C. Wright for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Press Publishing Company v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105; Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691; Benjamin v. New Orleans, 169 U. S. 161; Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Gregory v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643.