General
Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. Chicago
308 U.S. 505·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. 322.
Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. Chicago.
October 9, 1939.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.:]
Per Curiam.:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 461; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45, 50; O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U. S. 20, 26-27; Dunbar v. City of New York, 251 U. S. 516, 519; Booker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 118; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U. S. 444, 450; American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S 269, 273.
Messrs. Frederic Burnham and David F. Rosenthal for appellant. Messrs. Barnet Hodes, Joseph F. Grossman, and J. Herzl Segal for appellee.