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.
Commercial Union Assurance Company (Limited), of London, England, Petitioner, v. Richmond Coal Company, 1910 — 215 U.S. 609 · caselaw · US
General
Commercial Union Assurance Company (Limited), of London, England, Petitioner, v. Richmond Coal Company
215 U.S. 609·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
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. 658.
Commercial Union Assurance Company (Limited), of London, England, Petitioner, v. Richmond Coal Company.
January 24, 1910.
Mr. T. C. Van. Ness and Mr. Walter D. Davidge for petitioner. Mr. Emery S. Sykes for respondent. Mr. E. S. Pillsbury and Mr. William A. Maury filed a brief as amici enrice bv leave of the court.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.