Brooks v. Railroad Co.

102 U.S. 107, 26 L. Ed. 91, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2003
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 18, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 102 U.S. 107 (Brooks v. Railroad Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brooks v. Railroad Co., 102 U.S. 107, 26 L. Ed. 91, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2003 (1880).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

A petition for rehearing after judgment, under the rule promulgated in Public Schools v. Walker (9 Wall. 603), cannot be filed except at the term in which the judgment was rendered; In Hudson & Smith v. Guestier. (7 Cranch, 1), a motion was made at the February Term, 1812, for a rehearing in a case decided two years before; but the court said “ the case could not be reheard after the term In which it was decided.” At thé end of the term, the parties. are discharged from further attendance on all causes decided, and.we have no power to brihg them back. . After that, we can do no more than correct *108 any clerical errors that may be found in the record of what we have done.

In Brown v. Aspden (14 How. 25), where the practice in respect to orders for rearguments was first formally announced, the rule in this particular was not extended, for Mr. Chief Justice Taney was careful to say that the order for reargument might be made after judgment, provided it was entered at the saíne term; and the same limitation is maintained in United States v. Knight’s Administrator, 1 Black, 488. Down to that time such an order could be made only on the application of some member of the court who concurred in the judgment, and this continued until Public Schools v. Walker (supra), when leave was given counsel to submit a petition to the same effect. In all other respects the rule is now substantially the same as it was before this relaxation.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
586 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Kansas, 1984)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1944)
United States v. Bruce
52 F. Supp. 150 (W.D. Kentucky, 1943)
Morse v. United States
25 F. Supp. 580 (Court of Claims, 1938)
State v. Waddell
254 N.W. 627 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
United States v. Sterling
70 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Bahlkow v. Preston
251 N.W. 299 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1933)
Canning v. Hackett
3 F. Supp. 460 (D. Massachusetts, 1933)
Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Leman
50 F.2d 699 (First Circuit, 1931)
Jackson v. Smietanka
272 F. 970 (Seventh Circuit, 1921)
Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha
216 F. 848 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Tryon v. Pennsylvania R.
213 F. 49 (D. New Jersey, 1914)
Murray v. United States
46 Ct. Cl. 94 (Court of Claims, 1911)
Parsons v. Stevens
78 A. 347 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1910)
United States v. Traynor
173 F. 114 (E.D. Tennessee, 1909)
Home St. Ry. Co. v. City of Lincoln
162 F. 133 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
Wetmore v. Karrick
205 U.S. 141 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Burget v. Robinson
123 F. 262 (First Circuit, 1903)
Illinois v. Illinois Central Railroad
184 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 U.S. 107, 26 L. Ed. 91, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-railroad-co-scotus-1880.