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.
Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, 1902 — 186 U.S. 479 · caselaw · US
General
Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company
186 U.S. 479·Supreme Court of the United States·1902
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. 220.
Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Argued April 15, 16, 1902.
Decided April 21, 1902.
Mr. John C. Ohaney and Mr. Alphonso Hart for the plaintiff in error. Mr. George S. Payson for the defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368 ; Arkansas v. Schlierholz, 179 U. S. 598; Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695; Cornell v. Green, 163 U. S. 75; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359; and see Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, 102 Fed. Rep. 508; Richards v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, 179 U. S. 686; Richards v. Elevator Company, 158 U. S. 299; 159 U. S. 477.