Randall v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty., 261 U.S. 252 (1923). · Go Syfert
Search
Randall v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty., 261 U.S. 252 (1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stanley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (txnd, 1993-08-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Stanley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western & A.R.R. v. Railroad Comm'n, 261 U.S. 264, 267 , 43 S.Ct. 252 , 253, 67 L.Ed. 645 (1923) (holding that for injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is not the amount that might be recovered at law, but rather the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented); see also Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 3702-03, 3708 (2nd ed. 1985). 2 .
discussed Cited "see" Braniff International, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western & A.R.R. v. Railroad Comm’n of Georgia, 261 U.S. 264 , 267, 43 S.Ct. 252 , 67 L.Ed. 645 (1923); Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. Mutual Light, Heat & Power Co., 239 U.S. 121 , 125 26, 36 S.Ct. 30 , 60 L.Ed. 174 (1915); City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe, 546 F.2d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 1976); Jackson v. American Bar Association, 538 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1976); cf. Premier Indus.
cited Cited "see" Gold v. Lomenzo
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western & Atlantic R.R. v. Railroad Comm., 261 U.S. 264 , 43 S.Ct. 252 , 67 L.Ed. 645 (1923), but see Hatfield Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9 Cir. 1961).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Randall Et Al.
v.
Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County, Indiana
274.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1923.
261 U.S. 252
Mr. Otto Gresham for plaintiffs in error., Mr. Clyde II. Jones, with whom Mr. D. P. Flanagan was on the brief, for defendant in error.
Sutherland.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice Sutherland.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Indiana, when, clearly, it should have been to the State Appellate Court.

The action was brought in the Superior Court for Tippecanoe County. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court < but that court, of its own motion, entered an order trans-' ferring the cause to the Appellate Court, for want of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court thereupon took the case, received the briefs of counsel, heard oral arguments .and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A petition for rehearing was submitted and denied. Plaintiffs in errop then applied to the Supreme Court for an order to vacate its former order of transfer, or, in the alternative, for a writ of error coram nobis, which the Supreme Court denied.

It therefore appears that the Supreme Court refused to take the cáse on appeal' for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment of the highest-court of the State in which a deci[*253] sion in the suit could be had, Judicial Code, § 237, is that of the Appellate Court to which the writ should have been directed.

The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed on the authority of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hughes, 203 U. S. 505; Lane v. Wallace, 131 U. S. Appendix CCXIX; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 269; Second National Bank v. First National Bank, 242 U. S. 600; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530.

Dismissed.