Cleveland & Pittsburgh Railroad v. City of Cleveland
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court under § 237, Judicial Code, to review the judgment of a state court, are stated in the opinion. No Federal question is presented by the assignment of errors, nor was any Federal question specifically set up in the Supreme Court of Ohio. No change in decision has in fact taken place.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court under § 237, Judicial Code, to review the judgment of a state court, are stated in the opinion. No Federal question is presented by the assignment of errors, nor was any Federal question specifically set up in the Supreme Court of Ohio. No change in decision has in fact taken place. No Federal question was decided in the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the judgment rests upon independent grounds of purely state law sufficient to support it. The record clearly shows that the Supreme Court of…
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice Day,
by direction of the court.
The original action was brought by the city of Cleveland, Ohio, to oüst the railroad companies, now plaintiffs in error, from the exclusive possession of Bath Street, in that city. A number of defenses were set up by the railroad companies, but we are concerned only with the alleged deprivation of Federal right, resulting from the decision of the state court. In the court of original jurisdiction, the Common Pleas, judgment was rendered .in favor of the city. Upon proceedings in error, that judgment was affirmed by the state…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Spies v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- National Bank v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Ross v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Marvin v. TroutSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Sinking Fund Commissioners of Phila. v. Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Jackson v. Twin State Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. CorbinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Green Point Savings Bank v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.