Ex Parte Robinson

Ex Parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 513 (1873)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: October 1, 1873
Judges: Clifford
Citations: 86 U.S. 51322 L. Ed. 20519 Wall. 5131873 U.S. LEXIS 1456

Cited by 118 24 descriptions by later courts

Syllabus

An appeal does not lie to this court from an order of the District Court disbarring an attorney. The remedy of the party, if any, is by mandamus. See the case as reported, supra.

Summary

[On Appeal.] Before the application for a mandamus was made to this court, as above reported, the petitioner, Robinson, had appealed from the order of the District Court disbarring him. The record being filed, he moved that the case be advanced on the calendar for hearing.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Clifford

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The petitioner moves the court to advance the case. Cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the court to advance the same on motion. Still the motion must be denied, as it is well-settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. Hence it was held in the case of Ex parte Bradley, that mandamus from this court to a subordinate court was a proper-remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the eourt issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no-jurisdiction to pass the order.

Whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this court, is not by an appeal.

* Motion denied.

* Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 24 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that the district court could not disbar an attorney under the predecessor, to § 401)

F.J. Hanshaw Enters. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)
(observing that the “moment the courts of the United States were called into existence ... they became possessed of [inherent] power”)

United States v. Horn, 29 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1994)
(discussing the source and scope of a court's power to cite for contempt or disbar attorneys)

Kleiner v. The First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, Hansell & Post, Richard Kirby & Richard M, 751 F.2d 1193 (1st Cir. 1985)
("Before a judgment disbarring an attorney is rendered he should have ... ample opportunity of explanation and defence.")

Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1998)
(same constitution of the grant of judicial power under the federal constitution)

Commonwealth v. Zeitlen, 530 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1987)
(same, as to an attorney’s license)

Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010)

Cited by 118 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Price672 A.2d 893 (R.I. 1996)
Jackie Kleiner v. The First National Bank of Atlanta, Hansell & Post, Richard Kirby and Richard M751 F.2d 1193 (1st Cir. 1985)
Brenda Chilcutt v. United States of America, Randell P. Means, in His Individual Capacity4 F.3d 1313 (5th Cir. 1993)
Crowe v. Smith151 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1998)
Kleiner v. First National Bank751 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985)
Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Co.552 F. App'x 401 (6th Cir. 2013)

Most recent

State v. Lucier556 P.3d 4 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)
In re Kupperstein588 B.R. 279 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2018)
Benoit O. Brookens, II v. United States182 A.3d 123 (D.C. 2018)
W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources v. E.H.No. 16-0781 (W. Va. June 9, 2017)
AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG823 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016)
United States v. Wright812 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list