TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. Conger

Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390 (1888)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 22, 1888
Docket
No. 105
Judges
Bradley
Citations
131 U.S. 3909 S. Ct. 79333 L. Ed. 2011888 U.S. LEXIS 2043
Syllabus
A renewal of an application for a rehearing after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and for reasons which have been passed upon by the court, is not in order, and does not commend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.
Summary
EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. This was a petition to correct a clerical mistake in the opinion of this court, delivered April 2, 1888, Williams v. Conger, 125 U. S. 397, citing in support of the power to make the amendment Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, 3 Pet. 431. To this petition was appended a petition for a rehearing which had been presented and overruled at October Term, 1887,. accompanied by a “ demand upon the court ” to give it a hearing.

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

Opinion — Bradley

Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.

Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, • and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 11906: 11918: 11920: 11937: 11942: 11956: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad351 U.S. 183 (1956)
  2. Sun Oil Co. v. Burford130 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1942)
  3. City of Stuart v. Green91 F.2d 603 (5th Cir. 1937)
  4. Brandon v. West29 Nev. 135 (1906)
  5. Virginia & West Virginia Coal, Co. v. Charles254 F. 379 (4th Cir. 1918)
  6. Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.150 U.S. 82 (1893)

Most recent

  1. Cahill v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad351 U.S. 183 (1956)
  2. Sun Oil Co. v. Burford130 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1942)
  3. City of Stuart v. Green91 F.2d 603 (5th Cir. 1937)
  4. Moore v. Harkins103 S.E. 12 (N.C. 1920)
  5. Virginia & West Virginia Coal, Co. v. Charles254 F. 379 (4th Cir. 1918)
  6. Brandon v. West29 Nev. 135 (1906)

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