Whitney v. Cook

Supreme Court

Whitney v. Cook

99 U.S. 607, 25 L. Ed. 446, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1581

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 21, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 99 U.S. 607 (Whitney v. Cook) 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

Whitney v. Cook, 99 U.S. 607, 25 L. Ed. 446, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1581 (1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion to affirm only. Our amended Rule 6 allows a motion to affirm to be united with a motion to dismiss. This implies that there shall appear on the record at least some color of right to a dismissal. That is not pretended in this case. We are therefore compelled to deny the motion. Our experience teaches that the only way to discourage frivolous appeals and writs of error is by the use of our power to award damages, and we think this a proper case in which to say that hereafter more attention will be given to that subject, and the rule enforced both according to its letter and spirit. Parties should not be subjected to the delay of proceedings for review in this court without reasonable cause, and our power to make compensation to some extent for the loss occasioned by an unwarranted delay ought not to be overlooked.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion to affirm only. Our amended Rule 6 allows a motion to affirm to be united with a motion to dismiss. This implies that there shall appear on the record at least some color of right to a dismissal. That is not pretended in this case. We are therefore compelled to deny the motion. Our experience teaches that the only way to discourage frivolous appeals and writs of error is by the use of our power to award damages, and we think this a proper case in which to say that hereafter more attention will be given to that subject, and the rule enforced both according to its letter and spirit. Parties should not be subjected to the delay of proceedings for review in this court without reasonable cause, and our power to make compensation to some extent for the loss occasioned by an unwarranted delay ought not to be overlooked.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 U.S. 607, 25 L. Ed. 446, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-cook-scotus-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack