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.
W. T. Carter & Bros. et al. v. Short et al., 1939 — 308 U.S. 513 · caselaw · US
General
W. T. Carter & Bros. et al. v. Short et al.
308 U.S. 513·Supreme Court of the United States·1939
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. 396.
W. T. Carter & Bros. et al. v. Short et al.
November 6, 1939.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appéal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443; (2) Compare Litchfield v. Register, 9 Wall. 575, 577-578; Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U. S. 243, 250; Lane v. Darling ton, 249 U. S. 331, 333.
Messrs. John P. Bullington and Dillon Anderson for appellants. Messrs. H. Grady Chandler and Henry H. -Brooks for appellees.