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.
Bissert v. Hagan, Warden, 1901 — 183 U.S. 694 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Bissert v. Hagan, Warden
183 U.S. 694·Supreme Court of the United States·1901
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. 437.
Bissert v. Hagan, Warden.
Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted November 25, 1901.
Decided December 2, 1901.
Mr. Charles L. Le Barbier for the motions. Mr. Roger M. Sherman opposing.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Per Curiam.
Final order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Storti v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 138; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, and cases cited.