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.
Steamship Eagle Point, etc., Petitioner, v. Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Company, Limited, 1903 — 189 U.S. 510 · caselaw · US
General
Steamship Eagle Point, etc., Petitioner, v. Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Company, Limited
189 U.S. 510·Supreme Court of the United States·1903
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. 613.
Steamship Eagle Point, etc., Petitioner, v. Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Company, Limited.
March 2, 1903.
Mr. Wilhelmus Mynderse for petitioner.
Mr. Charles C. Burlingham and Mr. Harrington Putnam for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for a writ of certiorari to t*he United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.