Troche v. California

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued December 2, 1929.

Decided December 9, 1929.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1929-12-09

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“for want of a substantial federal question.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Muench v. Israel

Relies on Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal · Hull v. Burr · Norton v. Whiteside

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1998

4 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 →

¶1Mr. Ray T. Coughlin, with whom Mr. Roland Becsey was on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Messrs. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, and William F. Cleary, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for appellee.

¶3Per Curiam:

¶4The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal- question, on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for certiorari, as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 938), the certiorari is denied.