Miedreich v. Lauenstein
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. The facts, which involve the validity under the due .process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of a judgment based on a false return of service made by a sheriff, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
The plaintiff in error, by complaint filed in the Superior Court of Vanderburgh County, State of Indiana, sought to vacate a judgment of foreclosure rendered by that court in a prior case and to be permitted to redeem the property therein involved and prays for other relief, and, judgment having been entered in favor of the defendant in error, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Indiana (172 Indiana, 140), this writ of error was sued out.
The facts, so far as pertinent to our review, are: The complaint, in the fourth paragraph, alleged that the plaintiff in error was the owner of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Davidson v. New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1)Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Leeper v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Pettis v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Saltonstall v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. McCueSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.