Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Wall v. McNee

296 U.S. 547

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.