EDWARD E. O'BRIEN ET AL.
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE FIRST DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ETC.

U.S. | 1919-11-17
No. 69
251 U.S. 537 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of: (i) California Powder Works v. Dams, 151 U. S. 389, 393; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 86. (2) Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S. 258, 263; Bowe v. Scott, 233 U. S. 658, 664; and see El Paso Sash & Door Co.. v. Carraway, 245 U. S. 643. Mr. Robert H. Elder for plaintiffs in error. Mr. William P. Búrr and Mr. John F. O’Brien for defendant in error, submitted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1977)
    …at “a married person to cure or prevent disease,” but not to permit “promiscuous advice to patients irrespective of their condition.” People v. Sanger, 222 N. Y. 192, 194-195, 118 N. E. 637, 637-638 (1918), appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 251 U. S. 537 (1919) (per curiam). See also People v. Byrne, 99 Misc. 1, 163 N. Y. S. 682 (1917); People v. Baird, 47 Misc. 2d 478, 262 N. Y. S. 2d 947 (1965). In light of this history, it appears that insofar as the legislature had § 6807 (b) in mind at all whe…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw