Wallach v. Rudolph, 217 U.S. 561 (1910). · Go Syfert
Search
Wallach v. Rudolph, 217 U.S. 561 (1910). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“if the selection or classification is neither capricious nor arbitrary, and rests upon some reasonable consideration of difference or policy, there is no denial of equal protection of the law.”
120 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 58 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Savage v. Munn (or, 1993-08-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1911 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1911 1968 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Savage v. Munn
Or. · 1993 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
if the selection or classification is neither capricious nor arbitrary, and rests upon some reasonable consideration of difference or policy, there is no denial of equal protection of the law.
cited Cited as authority (rule) K & L DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. Murkowski
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
Co. v. Emmerson, 258 U.S. 290, 294 , 42 S.Ct. 305 , 66 L.Ed. 622, 625 (1922); Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 563, 573 , 30 S.Ct. 578 , 54 L.Ed. 883, 887 (1910). 25 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Joseph Triner Corp. v. Mahoney
D. Minnesota · 1937 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 563 , 30 S.Ct. 578 , 54 L.Ed. 883 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." West India Oil Co. v. Gallardo
1st Cir. · 1925 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, also, Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U. S. 563 , 30 S. Ct. 578 , 54 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wallach
v.
Rudolph Et Al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1910.
217 U.S. 561
1910 U.S. LEXIS 1983
Mr. Samuel Maddox, with whom Mr. H. Prescott Galley was on the brief, for plaintiff in error., Mr. James Francis Smith, with whom Mr. Edward H. Thomas was on the brief, for defendants in error.
Lurton.
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 60%
Citer courts: Oregon Supreme Court (1)
Mr. Justice Lurton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was argued with the case of Columbia Heights Realty Company v. The Commissioners' of the District of Columbia, and the questions presented are substantially the same. The plaintiff's in error were interested as owners of certain lots or parts of lots involved in the gen[*562] eral proceeding for the condemnation of property for the extension of Eleventh street, and an assessment for benefits was confirmed as.to the property, owned by them. They were allowed to prosecute a separate writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia from so much of the award as affected them, where the judgment was affirmed, and from that affirmation this writ of error has been sued out. The aggregate of the amounts which affect these plaintiffs in error and in respect of which they have assigned error is only $2,450.

Jurisdictional limit upon writs of error and appeals to or from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, 436.

To sustain the jurisdiction an affidavit has been filed to show that plaintiffs in error are contingently liable for an amount in excess of $5,000, if this judgment is sustained, by reason of like assessments in the same proceeding upon certain other lots or parts of lots, under other subdivision numbers and standing in the name of different owners, being lots disposed of pending the proceeding under an undertaking to remove the lien of any assessment for benefits which might be made herein. It does not follow as matter of law that such assessments against such other lots to other parties will be determined by this review. But, however this may be, “jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount directly involved in the decree appealed from, and not by any contingent demand which may be recovered, or any contingent loss which may be-sustained by either one of the parties through the probative effect of the decree, however direct its bearing upon such contingency.” Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326, 328.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be granted, and the writ is accordingly

Dismissed.