Home/Supreme Court/Ex Parte Robinson

Ex Parte Robinson

86 U.S. 513, 22 L. Ed. 205, 19 Wall. 513, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1456
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 1, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by140 cases

This text of 86 U.S. 513 (Ex Parte Robinson) 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
Ex Parte Robinson, 86 U.S. 513, 22 L. Ed. 205, 19 Wall. 513, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1456 (1873).

Opinion

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,

after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The petitioner moves the court to advance the case. Cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the court to advance the same on motion. Still the motion must be denied, as it is well-settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. Hence it was held in the case of Ex parte Bradley, that mandamus from this court to a subordinate court was a proper-remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the eourt issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no-jurisdiction to pass the order.

Whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this court, is not by an appeal. *

Motion denied.

*

Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364.

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

Related

State v. Lucier
556 P.3d 4 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024)
In re Kupperstein
588 B.R. 279 (D. Massachusetts, 2018)
Benoit O. Brookens, II v. United States
182 A.3d 123 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2018)
W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources v. E.H.
West Virginia Supreme Court, 2017
Unitronics (1989) (R"G) Ltd. v. Gharb
85 F. Supp. 3d 133 (District of Columbia, 2015)
Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
774 F.3d 935 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Co.
552 F. App'x 401 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
In Re FRIEDA Q.
742 S.E.2d 68 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2013)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. California, 2012)
In Re Gregg
428 B.R. 345 (D. South Carolina, 2009)
Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Rodriguez)
396 B.R. 436 (S.D. Texas, 2008)
Bowens v. Atlantic Maintenance Corp.
546 F. Supp. 2d 55 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Hunter TBA, Inc. v. Triple V Sales
250 F.R.D. 116 (E.D. New York, 2008)
State v. Mohs
743 N.W.2d 607 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2008)
United States v. Mallory
525 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
United States v. Moussaoui
483 F.3d 220 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
No. 06-4611
483 F.3d 220 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
State v. Mohs
726 N.W.2d 816 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2007)
Steven Mark Lasar v. Ford Motor Company, and Lawrence Sutter
399 F.3d 1101 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
In Re: Allen W. Bird, II
353 F.3d 636 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 U.S. 513, 22 L. Ed. 205, 19 Wall. 513, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-robinson-scotus-1873.