TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Muller v. Dows

Muller v. Dows, 94 U.S. 277 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 29, 1877
Judges
Waite
Citations
94 U.S. 27724 L. Ed. 761876 U.S. LEXIS 1861
Headnotes
Stipulations between counsel, relative to the course of proceeding in a cause pending in this court, cannot be withdrawn by either party without the consent • of the other, except by leave of the court upon cause shown.
Summary
Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the District of Iowa.

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

Opinion — Waite

*278 Mr, Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

Stipulations between counsel relative to the course of proceeding in a cause pending in this court cannot be withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other, except by .leave of the court upon cause shown. The counsel in this case stipulated in writing, on or before July 5, 1876, to submit the cause on printed arguments, under rule 20, during the first ninety days of this term. This stipulation was filed here July 5; but, Oct. 21, the counsel for the appellants notified the counsel for the appellees that he withdrew his agreement.

The counsel for the appellees having filed a printed argument ■ within the ninety days, now asks that the cause be taken up and considered by the court as submitted under the rule.

This we might with propriety do, as, if the desired withdrawal is not assented to, application for the vacation of the stipulation ought to be made here in time to have it disposed of before the expiration of the ninety days. But as we have never before been called upon to settle the practice- applicable to this class of cases, it is now ordered that the appellants cause a printed argument to be filed in their behalf on or before March 6, next, or show good cause why the stipulation for submission made by their counsel should not be enforced against them; and, in default, that the cause be taken up and considered as submitted under the rule,- without argument by the appellants.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1880–1881: 11884–1885: 11934–1935: 21940–1941: 11942–1943: 11946–1947: 11970–1971: 118802026peak 1934 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burnett v. Poage29 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 1947)
  2. Wright v. Nagle101 U.S. 791 (1880)
  3. LeBarron v. City of Harvard262 N.W. 26 (Neb. 1935)
  4. Wells v. Tietge9 N.W.2d 180 (Neb. 1943)
  5. Prager v. W. H. Chapman & Sons Co.9 S.E.2d 880 (W. Va. 1940) · Dissent
  6. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.434 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1970)

Most recent

  1. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.434 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1970)
  2. Burnett v. Poage29 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 1947)
  3. Wells v. Tietge9 N.W.2d 180 (Neb. 1943)
  4. Prager v. W. H. Chapman & Sons Co.9 S.E.2d 880 (W. Va. 1940) · Dissent
  5. Voightlander v. State ex rel. Barnett1935 OK 1092, 52 P.2d 60
  6. LeBarron v. City of Harvard262 N.W. 26 (Neb. 1935)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list