Whitney v. Cook

Whitney v. Cook, 99 U.S. 607 (1879)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: April 21, 1879
Judges: Waite
Citations: 99 U.S. 60725 L. Ed. 4461878 U.S. LEXIS 1581

Headnotes

1. Under amended Rule 6 the plaintiff in error, or the appellant, may, with a motion to dismiss the writ of error or the appeal, unite a motion to affirm the judgment or the decree; hut where there is no color of right to a dis missal, the case being clearly within the jurisdiction of this court, a motion to affirm merely will not he sustained. 2. The court declares that it will by the assessment of damages suppress the evil of resorting to its jurisdiction upon frivolous grounds.

Summary

Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. Motion to affirm the judgment of the court below.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion to affirm only. Our amended Rule 6 allows a motion to affirm to be united with a motion to dismiss. This implies that there shall appear on the record at least some color of right to a dismissal. That is not pretended in this case. We are therefore compelled to deny the motion. Our experience teaches that the only way to discourage frivolous appeals and writs of error is by the use of our power to award damages, and we think this a proper case in which to say that hereafter more attention will be given to that subject, and the rule enforced both according to its letter and spirit. Parties should not be subjected to the delay of proceedings for review in this court without reasonable cause, and our power to make compensation to some extent for the loss occasioned by an unwarranted delay ought not to be overlooked.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Seyler v. Seyler678 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1982)
Huber v. Shedoudy181 P. 63 (Cal. 1919)
Sweeney v. Coulter58 S.W. 784 (Ky. Ct. App. 1900)
May Department Stores Co. v. Reynolds140 F.2d 799 (8th Cir. 1944)
Dzialynski v. Bank of Jacksonville23 Fla. 44 (1887)
Margarito Martinez, Patricia Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir. 1984)

Most recent

Margarito Martinez, Patricia Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir. 1984)
Gladwin C. Lamb v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue733 F.2d 86 (10th Cir. 1984)
Tom Moulton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue733 F.2d 734 (10th Cir. 1984)
Buddy L. Snead and Ligaya Snead v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue733 F.2d 719 (10th Cir. 1984)
Seyler v. Seyler678 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1982)
May Department Stores Co. v. Reynolds140 F.2d 799 (8th Cir. 1944)

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