Cunningham v. City of Cleveland
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
1Opinion of the Court
SEVERENS, Circuit Judge.
This cause is now here for the fourth time. On the first occasion, it was brought up on an appeal by the complainant from a decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill. The decree was reversed, with directions to enter a decree for the *908fcopSiplainant for the full amount claimed by the bill, with interest and costs. . The - decision of this court was of the date of December 9, •1899. The facts of the case and the opinion of the court were reported in 98 Fed. 657, 39 C. C. A. 211. Pursuant to the mandate, on April. 11, 1900, a decree was entered in the Circuit Court…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Supervisors v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Taylor v. Louisville & N. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- City of Galena v. AmySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Cunningham v. City of ClevelandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- City of Cleveland v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Huidekoper v. HadleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
- City of Cleveland v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- United States ex rel. Fall City Const. Co. v. JimmersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- In re KullbergDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1909