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.
United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis. Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis, and St. Louis Transit Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis, 1916 — 241 U.S. 647 · caselaw · US
General
United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis. Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis, and St. Louis Transit Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis
241 U.S. 647·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
Nos. 365 and 367.
United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis. Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis; United Railways Company of St. Louis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis, and St. Louis Transit Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. The City of St. Louis.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Argued April 4 and 5, 1916.
Decided April 10, 1916.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (1) Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Holden Land Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co., 233 U. S. 536, 541; Mellon Co. v. Mc Cafferty, 239 U. S. 134; (2) Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry., 228 U. S. 596, 600; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14; (3) Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78; Chicago Dock Co. v. Fraley, 228 U. S. 680; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123, 143; St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U. S. 350, 366.
No. 366.
No. 368.
No. 369.
No. 370.
No. 371.
No. 372.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Henry S. Priest for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Truman P. Young and Mr. Charles H. Danes for the defendant in error.