Bushnell v. Crooke Mining & Smelting Co.
Bushnell v. Crooke Mining and Smelting Company
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
The Chief Justice:
Wq.
should not have been called on to reiterate the rule that án application for a rehearing cannot be entertained when presented after the expiration of the term at which the judgment was- rendered.
Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch, 1;
Browder v. M'Arthur, 7 Wheat. 58;
Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488 ;
Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S.107 ;
Williams v. Conger, 131 U. S. 390 .
Application denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.