Eighteen Packages of Dental Instruments v. United States, 242 U.S. 617 (1916). · Go Syfert
Search
Eighteen Packages of Dental Instruments v. United States, 242 U.S. 617 (1916). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ruth v. Fenchel (njsuperctappdiv, 1955-10-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ruth v. Fenchel
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1955 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Victor American Fuel Co. v. Tomljanovich, 232 F. 662 (1 st Cir. 1916), certiorari denied 242 U.S. 643 , 37 S.Ct. 212 , 61 L.Ed. 542 (1916); Barfield v. South Highlands Infirmary, 191 Ala. 553 , 68 So. 30 ( Sup. Ct. 1915); Scullin v. Vining, 127 Ark. 124 , 191 S.W. 924 ( Sup. Ct. 1917); Osborn v. Cary, 28 Idaho 89 , 152 P. 473 ( Sup. Ct. 1915); Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225 , 23 N.E. 156 , 7 L.R.A. 90 ( Sup. Ct. 1890); Ruud v. Hendrickson, supra ; Ganz v. Metropolitan Street Ry.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eighteen Packages of Dental Instruments, etc., and in Error
v.
United States
No. 586.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1916.
242 U.S. 617
Published
Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of The United States v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385, 391; Macfarland v. Brown, [*618] 187 U. S. 239; United States v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463, 466. Mr. John A. Kratz for the appellant and plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for the appellee and defendant in error.