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.
The United States, Appellant, v. Jock Coe; The United States, Appellant, v. Bong Meng; and The United States, Appellant, v. Woo Joe, 1905 — 196 U.S. 635 · caselaw · US
General
The United States, Appellant, v. Jock Coe; The United States, Appellant, v. Bong Meng; and The United States, Appellant, v. Woo Joe
196 U.S. 635·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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. 314.
No. 315.
No. 316.
The United States, Appellant, v. Jock Coe; The United States, Appellant, v. Bong Meng; and The United States, Appellant, v. Woo Joe.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
Submitted January 3, 1905.
Decided January 9, 1905.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Final orders and decrees reversed, and causes remanded for further proceedings in conformity to law. United States, Petitioner, 194 U. S. 194; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698; Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193; Ah How v. United States, 193 U. S. 65; United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161.
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Mc-Reynolds for appellant.
No brief filed for appellees.