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.
Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company, Appellant, v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, 1906 — 200 U.S. 613 · caselaw · US
General
Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company, Appellant, v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company
200 U.S. 613·Supreme Court of the United States·1906
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. 175.
Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company, Appellant, v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company.
Motion to dismiss submitted December 18, 1905.
Decided January 8, 1906.
Mr. George Turner, Mr. W. B: Heyburh and Mr. F. T. Post for appellant. Mr. Curtis H. Lindley, Mr. Henry Eickhoff and Mr. M. A.. Folsom for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction; Colorado Central Mining Company v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138; Press Publishing Company v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105; Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Company, 175 U. S. 571; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Company, 191 U. S. 526; Shoshone Mining Company v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505.