Daeche v. Bollschweiler

Supreme Court of the United States

Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 31, 1916.

Decided February 21, 1916.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1916-02-21

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.</p>

1 counsel of record

Relies on Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · George Henry v. William Henkel · Pierce v. Creecy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-02-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1932

1 federal appellate ·

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 →

¶1Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.

¶2Mr. Merritt Lane, Mr. John W. Ockford and Mr. Otto F. Seggel for the appellant. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for the appellee.

¶3Per Curiam.

¶4Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288; Hendricks v. United States, 223 U. S. 178, 184; (2) Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 10-11; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 401-402; (3) Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219.