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.

Madden Bros. Ex Parte

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1931
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95518

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
283 U.S. 807
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

Madden Bros. Ex Parte

Excerpt

madden bros. ex parte - 283 u.s. 807 (1931) u.s. supreme court madden bros. ex parte, 283 u.s. 807 (1931) 283 u.s. 807 ex parte madden bros., inc., petitioner. no. 24 , original. supreme court of the united states may 25, 1931 mr. e. w. macpherran, of duluth, minn. (messrs. h. a. dancer, of duluth, minn., and donald o. wright and alfred w. bowen, both of minneapolis, minn., of counsel), for petitioner. messrs. henry n. benson, atty. gen., of minnesota, and charles e. phillips, deputy atty. gen., and john f. bonner, asst. atty. gen., for respondent. per curiam. upon consideration of the return of the honorable joseph w. molyneaux to the rule (283 u.s. 794, 51 s. ct. 484, 75 l. ed. -), heretofore issued to him, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing and commanding him to vacate, annul, and set aside the order and decree of august 9, 1930, dismissing the bill of complaint in the case of madden bros., inc., v. the railroad and warehouse commission of the state of minnesota et al., and to call to his assistance two other judges and proceed in the said cause according to and in compliance with the provisions of section 266 of the judicial code (28 usca 380) in order to hear and determine the application for an interlocutory injunction in said cause; it is now here ordered that the said rule be, and the same is hereby, made absolute.

Full Judgment

MADDEN BROS. EX PARTE - 283 U.S. 807 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court MADDEN BROS. EX PARTE, 283 U.S. 807 (1931)

283 U.S. 807

Ex parte MADDEN BROS., Inc., petitioner.
No. 24
, original.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 25, 1931

Mr. E. W. MacPherran, of Duluth, Minn. (Messrs. H. A. Dancer, of Duluth, Minn., and Donald O. Wright and Alfred W. Bowen, both of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for petitioner.

Messrs. Henry N. Benson, Atty. Gen., of Minnesota, and Charles E. Phillips, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John F. Bonner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the return of the Honorable Joseph W. Molyneaux to the rule (283 U.S. 794, 51 S. Ct. 484, 75 L. Ed. -), heretofore issued to him, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing and commanding him to vacate, annul, and set aside the order and decree of August 9, 1930, dismissing the bill of complaint in the case of Madden Bros., Inc., v. The Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota et al., and to call to his assistance two other judges and proceed in the said cause according to and in compliance with the provisions of section 266 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA 380) in order to hear and determine the application for an interlocutory injunction in said cause;

It is now here ordered that the said rule be, and the same is hereby, made absolute.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial