TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

School District v. Insurance Co.

School District v. Insurance Company

Sch. Dist. v. Ins. Co., 101 U.S. 472 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 18, 1880
Docket
No. 714
Judges
Waite
Citations
101 U.S. 47225 L. Ed. 8681879 U.S. LEXIS 1942
Headnotes
1. The court announces its determination to insist upon a strict observance by counsel of all rules intended to facilitate the examination of causes, especially those submitted. 2. The submission of a cause under the 20th rule set aside for non-compliance with paragraph 4, subdivision 3, of Rule 21, which provides that “when a statute of a State is cited, so much thereof as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case shall be printed at length,” either in or with the brief.
Summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the District of Nebraska. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chiee Justice Waite 4Civered the opinion of the court.

' This cause was submitted on the 6th of January under the 20th Rule. Its decision depends on a careful consideration of several statutes of Nebraska. Rule 21 provides (par. 4, subdivision 8) that “ when a statute of a State is cited, so much thereof as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case shall be printed at length,” either in or with the brief. That rule has been entirely disregarded by both parties in this case. For this reason the submission is set aside and the cause restored to its place on .the docket.

We must insist on a strict observance by counsel of all rules intended to facilitate our examination of causes, especially those submitted. Although in general the statutes of the States are to be found in the Congressional Library, we do not have- them at our rooms, where necessarily cases are investigated. A little trouble on the part of counsel in obeying this particular rule, will expedite materially our labors. We take this opportunity of calling special attention to this subject.

How later courts describe this case

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

1895: 11898: 11963: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hygeia Distilled Water Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co.40 A. 534 (Conn. 1898)
  2. In re Ronny40 Misc. 2d 194 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1963)
  3. Pappe v. Trout41 P. 397 (Okla. 1895)

Most recent

  1. In re Ronny40 Misc. 2d 194 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1963)
  2. Hygeia Distilled Water Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co.40 A. 534 (Conn. 1898)
  3. Pappe v. Trout41 P. 397 (Okla. 1895)

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