BOARDMAN
v.
TOFFEY

U.S. | 1886-03-15
117 U.S. 271 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 898 · 6 S. Ct. 734 · SCDB 1885-169 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1835
Cited by 201 cases
Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice "Waite

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

This judgment is affirmed. The trial was by the court without a jury and there is no special finding of facts. The only questions presented by the bill of exceptions which we can consider are those which relate to the refusal of the court to allow certain interrogatories to be put to witnesses on the stand, and in these we find no error. The general finding prevents all inquiry by us into the special facts and conclusions of law on which that finding rests. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 673.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (161 total)

  • Glimmert Beckham v. State, 397 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
    …filed. We first address the contention that the federal court lacked the power to enter the January 24th order. The remedies to be granted in habeas corpus proceedings rest largely within the discretion of the court. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886); Wainwright v. Temple, 360 F. 2d 598 (5th Cir. 1966). It is well settled that a court is not restricted to simply discharging the petitioner or remanding him to custody; the prerogative to withhold release pending compliance wit…
  • Ingrassia v. Thompson, 843 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
    …e petition is granted. The remedy in a habe-as corpus proceeding is dictated by the nature of the issue and “rests largely in the discretion of the court.” Wainwright v. Temple, 360 F. 2d 598, 599 (5th Cir.1966)(citing Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886)). The finding of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel does not necessarily dictate the ordering of a new trial. See, e.g., Kleckley v. State, 810 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Wyatt v. State, 697 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th…
  • Fleischmann Constr. Co. v. United States to the Use of Forsberg, 270 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1926)
    …, 12 Wall. 285, 300; Dickinson v. Planters’ Bank, supra, 257; Insurance Co., v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237, 248; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69; Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158, 161; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 673; Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 271, 272; British Mining Co. v. Baker Mining Co., supra, 222; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71, 73; St. Louis v. Telegraph Co., 166 U. S. 388, 390; Vicksburg Ry. v. Anderson-Tully Co., 256 U. S. 408, 415; Law v. United States, 266 U. S. 494, 496; Humphre…

Previewing 3 of 161 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