Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mr. Thornton Lorimer, of Rochester, N. H., for appellant.
Mr. William N. Rogers, of Concord, N. H., for appellee.
For opinion below, see 1 F. Supp. 669.
In this case probable jurisdiction is noted. The Court desires to hear argument upon the questions: (a) whether a case for equitable relief is shown; (b) whether the amount in controversy is such as to sustain the jurisdiction of the Court below; and (c) whether the defendant-appellant is a state officer within the meaning of section 266, Judicial Code, as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938, U. S. Code, title 28, 380 [28 USCA 380]). The motion to advance is granted and the case is assigned for argument on Monday, March 13, next, after the cases heretofore assigned for that day.[ Healy v. Ratta
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 288 U.S. 593
No. 669
Decided: February 20, 1933
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)