Skip to content


Laws Vs. Davis - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number281 U.S. 702
AppellantLaws
RespondentDavis
Excerpt:
laws v. davis - 281 u.s. 702 (1930) u.s. supreme court laws v. davis, 281 u.s. 702 (1930) 281 u.s. 702 no. 744. florence b. laws, appellant, v. eleanor bradford davis, blanche l. bradford, hannah b. neff, et al. supreme court of the united states may 19, 1930 mr. walter a. decamp, of cincinnati, ohio, for appellant. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the state court sought here to be reviewed is based on a non-federal ground adequate to support it. bilby v. stewart, 246 u.s. 255, 257 , 38 s. ct. 264; dibble v. bellingham bay land company, 163 u.s. 63 , 16 s. ct. 939.
Judgment:
LAWS v. DAVIS - 281 U.S. 702 (1930)
U.S. Supreme Court LAWS v. DAVIS, 281 U.S. 702 (1930)

281 U.S. 702
No. 744.

Florence B. LAWS, appellant,
v.
Eleanor Bradford DAVIS, Blanche L. Bradford, Hannah B. Neff, et al.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 19, 1930

Mr. Walter A. DeCamp, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the State court sought here to be reviewed is based on a non-Federal ground adequate to support it. Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U.S. 255, 257 , 38 S. Ct. 264; Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Company, 163 U.S. 63 , 16 S. Ct. 939.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //