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.
SHREVEPORT v. HOLMES; SHREVEPORT v. CROOKS; SHREVEPORT v. CARTER, 1887 — 125 U.S. 694 · caselaw · US
General
SHREVEPORT v. HOLMES; SHREVEPORT v. CROOKS; SHREVEPORT v. CARTER
125 U.S. 69431 L. Ed. 854·Supreme Court of the United States·1887
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
SHREVEPORT v. HOLMES. SHREVEPORT v. CROOKS. SHREVEPORT v. CARTER.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE •WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
Nos. 1121, 1122, 1123.
Submitted October 17, 1887.
Decided November 14, 1887.
Rehearing refused January 9, 1888.
A petition for a rehearing of a case decided by a divided court is denied on the ground that no important constitutional question is involved.
• These cases, which were all submitted together, were all affirmed by a divided court on the 14th day of November, 1887. The plaintiff in error petitioned for a rehearing, citing Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 119 U. S. 129.
3ír. N. G. Blanchard and Mr. T. Alexander for plaintiff in error and for petitioner.
Mr. A. H. Leonard for defendant in error on the submission of the cases.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
These petitions are denied. The rehearing was granted in Home Insurance Co. v. New York, 119 U. S. 129, after a decision by a divided court, because an important constitutional question was involved. The questions in these cases are not of that character.