Legal Opinion
Biddle v. Luvisch
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 17, 1924No. 96PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
This certificate fails to meet often announced requirements and must be dismissed. It does not submit one or more definite questions of law arising upon the record but, in effect, asks decision of the whole case. Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 700, 704; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63, 65; United States v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512, 513; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 106, 107.
The constantly increasing demands upon us make it highly important that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jewell v. KnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Cross v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Hallowell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank v. MiamiSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Gormley v. SlicerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1933