Laws Vs. Davis - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/95327
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On1930
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.