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.
Omaha Baum Iron Store Co., Formerly Omaha Iron Store Co., Appellant, v. Moline Plow Company, 1917 — 244 U.S. 650 · caselaw · US
General
Omaha Baum Iron Store Co., Formerly Omaha Iron Store Co., Appellant, v. Moline Plow Company
244 U.S. 650·Supreme Court of the United States·1917
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. 1029.
Omaha Baum Iron Store Co., Formerly Omaha Iron Store Co., Appellant, v. Moline Plow Company.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
Motion to dismiss submitted June 4, 1917.
Decided June 11, 1917.
Mr. Otto Raymond Barnett for appellant.
Mr. Thomas A. Banning and Mr. Samuel W. Banning for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 37; Brown v. Alton Water Co., 222 U. S. 325; Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley District, 223 U. S. 519; Union Trust Co. v. Westhus, 228 U. S. 519; Shapiro v. United States, 235 U. S. 412.