TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Griffith

United States v. Griffith, 141 U.S. 212 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 8, 1890
Docket
No. 114
Judges
Fuller
Citations
141 U.S. 21211 S. Ct. 100535 L. Ed. 7191890 U.S. LEXIS 2128
Syllabus
It is irregular for counsel for an appellant to file, with a motion to dismiss, the appeal papers stating the grounds on which the motion is made.
Summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. The case is stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Fuller

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

The motion by appellant for leave to dismiss its appeal in this cause is accompanied by certain correspondence which is referred to as stating the grounds on which the motion is made. We cannot be called upon to examine into these papers for the purpose' of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the dismissal is justifiable or not, and must decline to permit them to be filed and to thereby leave it to be inferred hereafter that we may have acted upon them. Appellant undoubtedly has the right to dismiss its appeal with the leave of the court, and may renew .its motion to that effect unaccompanied by other matter, and the order of dismissal will be entered.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Mav/ry thereupon withdrew the papers, and renewed the motion without' them, and the appeal was ordered to be Dismissed.

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 →
1897: 11903: 11959: 11965: 11985: 11986: 12003: 12006: 12010: 718972026peak 2010 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Greene v. United Shoe Machinery Co.124 F. 961 (1st Cir. 1903)
  2. Robert J. Cornelius, Sr. v. The United States348 F.2d 960 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
  3. State v. Grundler111 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1959)
  4. Kelley v. Marlin714 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. 1986)
  5. Hicks v. Castille313 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010)
  6. Citicorp v. Bank of Lansing604 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Ind. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Hicks v. Castille313 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010)
  2. Cecil Hicks v. Tim CastilleNo. 07-09-00095-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 21, 2010)
  3. Cecil Hicks v. Tim CastilleNo. 07-09-00095-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 21, 2010)
  4. Cecil Hicks v. Tim CastilleNo. 07-09-00095-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 21, 2010)
  5. Cecil Hicks v. Tim CastilleNo. 07-09-00095-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 12, 2010)
  6. Naith Griffin, Jr. v. Virgil GriffinNo. 10-08-00327-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 13, 2010)

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