United States v. Griffith

141 U.S. 212, 11 S. Ct. 1005, 35 L. Ed. 719, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2128
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 8, 1890
Docket114
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 141 U.S. 212 (United States v. Griffith) 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
United States v. Griffith, 141 U.S. 212, 11 S. Ct. 1005, 35 L. Ed. 719, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2128 (1890).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

Hicks v. Castille
313 S.W.3d 874 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Cecil Hicks v. Tim Castille
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Naith Griffin, Jr. v. Virgil Griffin
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
in the Interest of A.M.W. and A.H.W., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Kelley v. Marlin
714 S.W.2d 303 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Citicorp v. Bank of Lansing
604 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Indiana, 1985)
Robert J. Cornelius, Sr. v. The United States
348 F.2d 960 (Court of Claims, 1965)
State v. Grundler
111 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
Greene v. United Shoe Machinery Co.
124 F. 961 (First Circuit, 1903)
Donallan v. Tannage Patent Co.
79 F. 385 (First Circuit, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 U.S. 212, 11 S. Ct. 1005, 35 L. Ed. 719, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-griffith-scotus-1890.