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.
Rudolph H. Evans, Respondent, v. Charles F. Muller et al., Respondents, and David Keane et al., Appellants, 1903 — 173 N.Y. 601 · caselaw · US
General
Rudolph H. Evans, Respondent, v. Charles F. Muller et al., Respondents, and David Keane et al., Appellants
173 N.Y. 601·New York Court of Appeals·1903·NY
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
Rudolph H. Evans, Respondent, v. Charles F. Muller et al., Respondents, and David Keane et al., Appellants.
Moans v. Muller, 74 App. Div. 630, appeal dismissed.
(Argued January 5, 1903;
decided January 13, 1903.)
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 24, 1902, which affirmed an order of Special Term discontinuing the action.
The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Wolcott G. Lame for motion.
J. Noble Hayes opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs accrued in this court and ten dollars costs of motion.