EX PARTE FONDA

U.S. | 1886-04-05
117 U.S. 516 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 994 · 6 S. Ct. 848 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1869 · SCDB 1885-205
Cited by 79 cases
Opinion of the Court
.Mn. -Chief Justice Waite

.Mn. -Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied on the authority of Ex parte Royall, ante 241. No reason is suggested why the Supreme Court of the State may not review the judgment of the Circuit Court of the county upon the question which is raised as to the applica-tidn of the statute, under which the. conviction has been had, to embezzlements by -the servants and clerks 6f national banks,- . nor why it should not be permitted to do, so without interfer- . ence by the courts of the United States. The question appears \to be one'which, if properly presented by the record, may be reviewed in this court after a decision py the Supreme Court adverse to the petitioner. The case as made by the motion papers is not one which, under the principles settled in RoyalVs Oase, requires this court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for a review of-the judgment by writ of error. : Motion denied. .

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (33 total)

  • FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
    …incontrovertibility of the truth of the return was subject to numerous exceptions. Hurd, Habeas Corpus (2d ed. 1876), 271; Bacon, Abridgment, Habeas Corpus (Bouvier ed., 1856), B 11. Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 194-195. See, e. g., Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192; Ex…
    1 / 2
  • Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1950)
    …state courts. 28 U. S. C. § 2283; 1 Stat. 334, §5; see Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503. Cf. the three-judge district court provisions, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284. 117 U. S. 241. 117 U. S. 241, 252; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183. 111 U. S. 176, 117 U. S. 516. In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449, 454. In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278. In re Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70, 77-78; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89, 98; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, 242; Tinsley…
  • Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1915)

Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw