Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Wall Vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.

Wall vs Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-11-1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/93480

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
256 U.S. 125
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wall

Respondent

Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.

Excerpt

wall v. chesapeake & ohio ry. co. - 256 u.s. 125 (1921) u.s. supreme court wall v. chesapeake & ohio ry. co., 256 u.s. 125 (1921) wall v. chesapeake & ohio railway company no. 237 argued march 21, 1921 decided april 11, 1921 256 u.s. 125 error to the supreme court of the state of illinois syllabus a federal question which could have been raised before but was first raised in the state supreme court by a petition for rehearing, which that court merely overruled, does not confer jurisdiction on this court. writ of error to review 290 ill. 227 dismissed. the case is stated in the opinion. page 256 u. s. 126 mr. justice mc reynolds delivered the opinion of the court. an illinois statute of 1903 amended the act of 1853 which gave a right of action for wrongful death by adding thereto: " provided further, that no action shall be brought or prosecuted in this state to recover damages for death occurring outside of this state." our jurisdiction is invoked upon the theory that validity of the amending act was challenged below because of conflict with the federal constitution. but the point was not raised prior to the petition to the supreme court for a rehearing which was overruled without more. 290 ill. 227. it could have been presented earlier. according to the well established rule, we may not now consider it, and the writ of error must be dismissed. godchaux co. v. estopinal, 251 u. s. 179 . dismissed.

Full Judgment

Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. - 256 U.S. 125 (1921)
U.S. Supreme Court Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 256 U.S. 125 (1921)

Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company

No. 237

Argued March 21, 1921

Decided April 11, 1921

256 U.S. 125

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

A federal question which could have been raised before but was first raised in the state supreme court by a petition for rehearing, which that court merely overruled, does not confer jurisdiction on this court.

Writ of error to review 290 Ill. 227 dismissed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 256 U. S. 126

MR. JUSTICE Mc REYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An Illinois statute of 1903 amended the Act of 1853 which gave a right of action for wrongful death by adding thereto: " Provided further, that no action shall be brought or prosecuted in this state to recover damages for death occurring outside of this state." Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the theory that validity of the amending act was challenged below because of conflict with the federal Constitution. But the point was not raised prior to the petition to the Supreme Court for a rehearing which was overruled without more. 290 Ill. 227. It could have been presented earlier. According to the well established rule, we may not now consider it, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179 .

Dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial