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.
Superior Court of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Evans, Building and Loan Commissioner, 1940 — 309 U.S. 640 · caselaw · US
General
Superior Court of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Evans, Building and Loan Commissioner
309 U.S. 640·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 836.
Superior Court of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Evans, Building and Loan Commissioner.
April 22, 1940.
Messrs. Wm. M. Cannon and W. H. Orrick for appellants.
Messrs. O. K. Cushing, Charles S. Cushing, Everett S. Layman, and Bartley C. Crum for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is .dismissed for the want of a properly presented federal question. Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443.