Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

201 U.S. 166

26 S. Ct. 407

50 L. Ed. 710

Docket No. 18,

Ex parte Automatic Switch Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 19, 1906.

Decided March 19, 1906.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1906-03-19

<p>PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Steffens

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Hurn v. Oursler (1933), Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. (1938)

58 federal appellate · 12 district ·

280190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

¶2Original.

¶3Decided on authority of Ex parle National'Enameling and Stamping Co,, ante, p. 156.

¶4Mr. Philip Mauro, with whom Mr. Harold Binney and Mr. C. A. L. Massie were on the brief, for petitioner.1

¶5Mr. W. Clyde Jones, with whom Air. John Ridout was-on the brief, for respondent.

¶7Mr. Justice Brewer

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9This case, though differing in its facts somewhat from the one immediately preceding, presents the same question, and the same order will be entered.

/201/us/166 · .json · Public domain