Legal Opinion
Arneson v. United Irrigation Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 18, 1932No. 319PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
The appeal herein is dismissed for the reason that the decree of the state court sought here to be reviewed was based on non-federal grounds adequate to support it (Parson Son *593& Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268; Browne v. Union Pacific R. Co., 267 U. S. 255; Live Oak Water Users’ Assn. v. Railroad Commission, 269 U. S. 354, 359; Security National Bank v. Twinde, 278 U. S. 659; Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 280 U. S. 520); and for the want of a substantial federal question (Wabash Ry. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29; Erie R. Co. v. Solomon, 237 U. S. 427; C. A. King & Co. v. Horton,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Roe v. Kansas Ex Rel. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Wabash Railroad v. FlanniganSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Farson, Son & Co. v. BirdSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Erie Railroad v. SolomonSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Live Oak Water Users' Ass'n v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bennett v. Brown County Water Improvement District No. OneTexas Supreme Court · 1954
- Willacy County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 v. AbendrothTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Lovret v. SeyfarthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Operative Plasterers' & Cement Finishers' International Ass'n v. CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1937
- Budd Const. Co., Inc. v. City of AlexandriaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.