Supreme Court of the United States, 1890

San Francisco City and County v. Itsell

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 20, 1890 · Geat

133 U.S. 65; 10 S. Ct. 241; 33 L. Ed. 570; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1890 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John L: Love, Mr. George' Flournoy and Mr. J. H. Mkoon, for-plaintiff in error,, Mr. Thomas I). Hiordan, Mr. William Leviston and Mr. George Leviston, for defendants in- error.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

O'Neil v. Vermont (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
In re Sollars (District Court, W.D. Washington 1933)
Rozier v. St. Mary's Hospital (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)
Powell v. Jones (Ill. 1973)
Galien Township School Dist v. Superintendent of Pub Instruction (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)
Robinson v. Houston-Galveston Area Council (District Court, S.D. Texas 1983)
Bell v. Board of Sch. Com'rs of Mobile Cty. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama 1978)
Bundo v. City of Walled Lake (Mich. 1976)
Jamerson v. Village of South Mansfield (La. Ct. App. 1974)
Kellogg v. King (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Chase v. Phillips (Supreme Court of the United States 1912)
King v. West Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States 1910)
Kenney v. Craven (Supreme Court of the United States 1909)
Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri (Supreme Court of the United States 1908)
Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1908)
Jones v. Vane (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
Elk Fork Oil & Gas Co. v. Foster (4th Cir. 1900)
California v. Holladay (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
Giles v. Little (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
Beatty v. Benton (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Me.: Justice Geat,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

.This court has.no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the highest- court of a State, unless- a federal question has been, either in express terms Or-by necessary effect, decided by that court against -the plaintiff in error. Rev. Stat. § 709; New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125, U. S. 18; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554.

In the'present case, the record of the pleadings, findings of *67 fact and judgment shows that it was unnecessary for that court to decide, and its opinion filed in the case and copied in the record shows that it did not decide, any question against the plaintiff in error, except the issue whether the former judgment rendered against it and in favor of the grantor of the defendants in error was a bar to this action. That was a question of general law only, in nowise depending upon the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States. Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200.

Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.