Northern Securities Co. v. United States

191 U.S. 555, 24 S. Ct. 119, 48 L. Ed. 299, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1461
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 30, 1903·No. 277·Published·Cited by 27 cases

Opinion

The Chief Justice:

In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. When the motion was submitted objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.

Where in a pending case application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other *556 pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to '.allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 17; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 491; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected.by the decision of this case; as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed; and consent has not been given.

Leave to file must, therefore, be

Denied.

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

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S. Ct. 119, 48 L. Ed. 299, 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1461 (1903).

191 U.S. 555 (Northern Securities Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
D. Alaska, 2026
AbbVie Inc. v. Jackley
D. South Dakota, 2025
Foothill Church v. Watanabe
E.D. California, 2022
Lo v. County of Siskiyou
E.D. California, 2021
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
S.D. California, 2020
Pavek v. Simon
D. Minnesota, 2020
Irving Paper Ltd. v. United States
296 F. Supp. 3d 1369 (Court of International Trade, 2018)
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States
6 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (Court of International Trade, 2014)
Tafas v. Dudas
511 F. Supp. 2d 652 (E.D. Virginia, 2007)
Thalheim v. Town of Greenwich
775 A.2d 947 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
COMMUNITY ASS'N FOR RESTOR. v. Deruyter Bros. Dairy
54 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Washington, 1999)
John H. Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
125 F.3d 1062 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Michigan
940 F.2d 143 (Sixth Circuit, 1991)