General
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Texas
241 U.S. 650·Supreme Court of the United States·1916
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. 188.
Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Texas.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.
Argued April 17 and 18, 1916.
Decided April 24, 1916.
Mr. Herbert S.- Garrett, Mr. Robert Lynn Batts and Mr. John A. Eaton for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Benjamin F. Looney and Mr. Frank L. Snodgrass for the defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for Want of jurisdiction upon the authority of:
(1) Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U. S. 75.
(2) Kansas City Star Co. v. Julian, 215 U. S. 589; Forbes v. State Council of Virginia, 216 U. S. 396-399; St. Louis & San Francisco Railway v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240.
(3) Henkel v. Cincinnati, 177 U. S. 170; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192, 194; Allen v. Arguimbau, 198 U. S. 149, 156; Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. R. v. Cleveland, 235 U. S. 50, 55.
(4) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102; Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471. See Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 144, 147; Abilene National Bank v. Dolley, 228 U. S. 1, 5; Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 289, et seq.; Cincinnati, Indianapolis & W. Ry. v. Connersville, 218 U. S. 336; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262, 283 et seq.