Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Wall v. McNee
Wall v. McNee, 296 U.S. 547 (1935)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1935-11-18
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam: As appellants, de*548fendants below, are not state officers within the meaning of § 266 of the Judicial Code (Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89, 92; Ex parte Collins, 277 U. S. 565, 568; Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U. S. 101, 104; School District No. 7 v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Wall v. McNee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
Per Curiam:
As appellants, de
*548
fendants below, are not state officers within the meaning of § 266 of the Judicial Code (Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89, 92; Ex parte Collins, 277 U. S. 565, 568; Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U. S. 101, 104; School District No. 7 v. Hunnicut, 283 U. S. 810; Ex parte Everglades Drainage District, 293 U. S. 521; Everglades Drainage Dist. v. Florida Ranch & Dairy Corp., 74 F. (2d) 914, 915, 916; Rorick v. Everglades Drainage, 27 F. (2d) 377, 380, 381), the decree herein is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be taken independently of § 266 of the Judicial Code, Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18, 19.
Mr. H. E. Carter, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, with whom
Mr. Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and
Mr. J. V. Keen, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. D. C. Hull, with whom
Messrs. Erskine W. Landis and
Francis P. Whitehair were on the brief, for appellee. See
4 F. Supp. 496.