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.
Indiana Power Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. St. Joseph and Elkhart Power Company, 1902 — 187 U.S. 636 · caselaw · US
General
Indiana Power Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. St. Joseph and Elkhart Power Company
187 U.S. 636·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. 394.
Indiana Power Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. St. Joseph and Elkhart Power Company.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana.
Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted October 14, 1902.
Decided October 20, 1902.
Mr. Frank F. Meed and Mr. Ferdinand Winter for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles Francis Carusi for the defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Pim v. St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273; Cook County v. Dock Company, 138 U. S. 635; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 200; Mining Company v. McFadden, 180 U. S. 535.