TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Micas v. Williams

Micas v. Williams, 104 U.S. 556 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 16, 1882
Judges
Waite
Citations
104 U.S. 55626 L. Ed. 8421881 U.S. LEXIS 2046
Headnotes
Where the record is such as to furnish a sufficient color of right to the dismissal - of the writ of error to justify the court in entertaining with a motion to dismiss a motion' io affirm under Rule 6,— Held, that although the grounds for dismissal he removed by a further showing, the motion to affirm will he granted, when it is manifest that the writ was sued out for delay only.
Summary
Motion to dismiss a writ’of error .to the Circuit Court>of the United -States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, with which is united a motion to affirm under -Rule 6, par. 5.

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

Opinion — Waite

*557 Mr. Chief Justice Waite:

delivered the opinion of the court.

The affidavits which have been' filed by the plaintiff in error,, in opposition to'these, motions, are probably sufficient ¡to establish the: fact that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $5,000. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied ; but on-, looking into the record we are entirely satisfied the writ was taken for delay only.' No assignment'of errors has been annexed to or returned with the writ, as required by sect. 997 of the Revised Statutes; and every question presented by the bill of exceptions or suggested upon the argument appears to us so frivolous as to make it improper- .to keep the case here for any further consideration. There was' on the record, as it stood when these motions were made, at least sufficient, color of right to a dismissal to justify us in entertaining with it a motion to affirm in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, par. 5.

Motion to affirm granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1889: 11915: 11920: 11934: 118892026peak 1889 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California293 U.S. 245 (1934)
  2. The Alaska130 U.S. 201 (1889)
  3. Strange v. Harwood177 N.W. 862 (Wis. 1920)
  4. Bergdoll v. Harrigan238 U.S. 609 (1915)

Most recent

  1. Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California293 U.S. 245 (1934)
  2. Strange v. Harwood177 N.W. 862 (Wis. 1920)
  3. Bergdoll v. Harrigan238 U.S. 609 (1915)
  4. The Alaska130 U.S. 201 (1889)

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