Tax
J. D. Purcell et al. v. City of Lexington on Relation of Thomas E. Coyne, Back Tax Assessor
253 U.S. 476·Supreme Court of the United States·1920
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. 708.
J. D. Purcell et al. v. City of Lexington on Relation op Thomas E. Coyne, Back Tax Assessor.
Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.
Motion to dismiss submitted May 17, 1920.
Decided June 1, 1920.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon thé authority of: (1) New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38, 39; Central Land Co. v, Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 111; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 116; Hubert v. New Orleans, 215 U. S. 170, 175; Missouri & Kansas Interurban By. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 187,190. (2) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, ,79; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184.
Mr. George C. Webb and Mr. George R. Hunt for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Jesse I. Miller and Mr. Harry B. Miller for defendant in error.