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.
Dolbow v. New Jersey; and Driscoll v. Same, 1937 — 301 U.S. 669 · caselaw · US
General
Dolbow v. New Jersey; and Driscoll v. Same
301 U.S. 669·Supreme Court of the United States·1937
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. 988.
No. 989.
Dolbow v. New Jersey; and Driscoll v. Same.
Jurisdictional statement distributed May 27, 1937.
Decided June 1, 1937.
Mr. John Warren for appellant in No. 988. Mr. James Mercer Davis for appellant in No. 989. No appearance for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The appeals herein are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 71; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 175-177; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 341, 342; Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105.