Contracts · MBE-tested
Los Angeles et al. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District et al.
305 U.S. 564·Supreme Court of the United States·1938
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. 368.
Los Angeles et al. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District et al.
October 17, 1938.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of California.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted as to the City of Los Angeles, and as to it the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182; Williams v. Mayor, 289 U. S. 36, 40; South Bend v. DeHaven, 302 U. S. 644. As to the remaining appellant, further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court and of the motion to dismiss or affirm is postponed to the merits.
Messrs. Ray L. Chesebro, Frederick von Schrader, William H. Neal, and Bourke Jones for appellants.
Messrs. W. B. McKes-son and U. T. Clotfelter for appellees.