WYSONG v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 276 U.S. 608 (1928)

U.S. Supreme Court

WYSONG v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 276 U.S. 608 (1928)

276 U.S. 608
No. 877.

Joe WYSONG, plaintiff in error,
v.
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 9, 1928

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record herein submitted, the court finds that this is not a case in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity; or where is properly drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of California, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity. It is, therefore, not a case which, under sec. 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937 (28 USCA 344)) may be reviewed by this Court on writ of error, and this Court has no jurisdiction thereof under said section. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1, 5, 6 S., 40 S. Ct. 255.

Treating the writ of error as a petition for writ of certiorari under sec. 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), the clerk is directed to issue an order returnable April 30th next against Joe Wysong to show cause, if any there be, by printed return and printed brief, why the petition for certiorari should not be denied for lack of a substantial federal question shown in the record giving this court jurisdiction.[ Wysong v. People of State of California 276 U.S. 608 (1928) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

WYSONG v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 276 U.S. 608 (1928)

 276 U.S. 608 
No. 877.

Joe WYSONG, plaintiff in error,
v.
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 9, 1928

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record herein submitted, the court finds that this is not a case in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity; or where is properly drawn in question the validity of a statute of the State of California, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity. It is, therefore, not a case which, under sec. 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937 (28 USCA 344)) may be reviewed by this Court on writ of error, and this Court has no jurisdiction thereof under said section. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1, 5, 6 S., 40 S. Ct. 255.

Treating the writ of error as a petition for writ of certiorari under sec. 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937), the clerk is directed to issue an order returnable April 30th next against Joe Wysong to show cause, if any there be, by printed return and printed brief, why the petition for certiorari should not be denied for lack of a substantial federal question shown in the record giving this court jurisdiction.[ Wysong v. People of State of California 276 U.S. 608 (1928) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.