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.
Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. O' Brien, 1894 — 155 U.S. 141 · caselaw · US
General
Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. O' Brien
155 U.S. 14139 L. Ed. 100·Supreme Court of the United States·1894
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
Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. O’ Brien.
Error to- the Supreme Court .of the State of Washington.
No. 65.
Argued November 9, 1894.
Decided November 12, 1894.
Mr. Reese H. Voorhees for the motion to dismiss.
Mr. A. H. Garland, with' whom were Mr. James McNaught and Mr. H. J. May, opposing.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice :]
The Chief Justice :
This case falls within that just decided, and, for the reason^there given, the writ of error must be
Dismissed.