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.
SHAW v. UNITED STATES, 1908 — 212 U.S. 559 · caselaw · US
General
SHAW v. UNITED STATES
212 U.S. 559·Supreme Court of the United States·1908
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
SHAW v. UNITED STATES.
APPPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ■ THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
No. 426.
Motion to dismiss or affirm. —
Submitted November 16, 1908.
Decided November 30, 1908.
American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 211 U. S. 155, which held that a direct appeal from the- Circuit Court would not lie in a case where the only real substantial point was whether an officer of the United States had misconstrued the tariff act of 1897, followed, and appeal dismissed.
Writ of error to reverse 141 Fed. Rep. 469, dismissed.
The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for the appellee in support of the motion.
Mr. Edward S. Hatch, for the appellant, in opposition to the motion.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Shaw v. United States, 141 Fed. Rep. 469; United States v. Shaw, 144 Fed. Rep. 329, and opinion of Board of General Appraisers, Shaw v. United States, 203 U. S. 591; American Sugar Refining Company v. United States, decided to-day, 211 U. S. 155.