Gettys Vs. Newburger

Gettys vs Newburger

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1922

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/93770

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/93770
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1922
Case Number: 260 U.S. 693
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gettys

Respondent

Newburger

Excerpt

gettys v. newburger - 260 u.s. 693 (1922) u.s. supreme court gettys v. newburger, 260 u.s. 693 (1922) 260 u.s. 693 seth gettys et al., etc., plaintiffs in error, v. silvan newburger, joseph newburger, et al. no. 183. supreme court of the united states october 9, 1922 messrs. w. a. ledbetter, h. l. stuart and r. r. bell, all of oklahoma city, okl., for plaintiffs in error. messrs. henry e. asp, henry g. snyder, frederick b. owen, and walter a. lybrand, all of oklahoma city, okl., and bernard titche, of new orleans, la., for defendants in error. per curiam. dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of spencer v. duplan silk co., 191 u.s. 526 , 530;1 shulthis v. mcdougal, 225 u.s. 561 , 569;2 hull v. burr, 234 u.s. 712, 720 , 34 s. sup. ct. 892; norton v. whiteside, 239 u.s. 144, 147 , 36 s. sup. ct. 97. footnotes footnote 1 24 sup. ct. 174. footnote 2 32 sup. ct. 704.[ gettys v. newburger 260 u.s. 693 (1922) ]

Full Judgment

GETTYS v. NEWBURGER - 260 U.S. 693 (1922)
U.S. Supreme Court GETTYS v. NEWBURGER, 260 U.S. 693 (1922)

260 U.S. 693

Seth GETTYS et al., etc., plaintiffs in error,
v.
Silvan NEWBURGER, Joseph Newburger, et al.
No. 183.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 9, 1922

Messrs. W. A. Ledbetter, H. L. Stuart and R. R. Bell, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Henry E. Asp, Henry G. Snyder, Frederick B. Owen, and Walter A. Lybrand, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., and Bernard Titche, of New Orleans, La., for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U.S. 526 , 530;1 Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 , 569;2 Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712, 720 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 892; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, 147 , 36 S. Sup. Ct. 97. Footnotes

Footnote 1 24 Sup. Ct. 174.

Footnote 2 32 Sup. Ct. 704.[ Gettys v. Newburger 260 U.S. 693 (1922) ]

Same Parties Gettys vs Newburger Same Subject Land Acquisition