SIMMERMAN
v.
NEBRASKA

U.S. | 1885-12-07
116 U.S. 54 Supreme Court of the United States (1885) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 535 · 6 S. Ct. 333 · SCDB 1885-055 · 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1892
Cited by 21 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Simmerman appealed to the Supreme Court based on a federal question, but the Court found that no federal issue had been raised or relied upon in the proceedings before the Nebraska Supreme Court—the federal question appeared only in the petition for a writ of error to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it cannot consider federal questions raised for the first time after final judgment in a lower court.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

It nowhere appears from this record, either in the application for a' change of venub, or in the objections to the admissiblity of evidence, to the charge of the court as given, or to the refusals to charge as requested, or in the motion for a new trial, the assignment of errors in the Supreme Court of the State, or the opinion filed in that court, that any Federal question was actually presented for consideration or in any way relied on before the final judgment from which the writ • of error has been taken. Such being the case, we cannot take jurisdiction. Detroit Railway Co. v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133; Brown v. Colorado, 106 U. S.

95. The fact that, after the final judgment, and in the petition for a writ of error to this court, which seems to" have been treated also as a petition for rehearing, a Federal question was presented is not enough. It was so decided in Susquehanna Boom Co. v. West Branch Boom Co., 110 U. S.

57. As was said in that case: “Wé act on the case as made to the court below when the judgment was rendered, and cannot incorporate into the record any new matter which appears for the first time after the judgment, on a petition for rehearing. -Such a petition is no part of the record on which the judgment rests.”

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1945)
    …tion for rehearing come too late for consideration here, unless the State court exerted its jurisdiction in such a way that the case could have been brought here had the questions been raised prior to the original disposition. Simmerman v. Nebraska, 116 U. S. 54; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156. Here the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the federal question had dropped out as a matter of pleading and also denied its merits. [*129] This brings the situ…
  • McPHERSON v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1892)
  • Cent. Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1895)

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw