NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The Supreme Court denied a motion by outside counsel seeking permission to file a brief as amicus curiae in a pending case, holding that while courts may exercise discretion to allow such filings when justified by circumstances and consent is given, permission could not be granted where the applicant had no direct interest in other affected cases, competent counsel already represented the parties, and consent was withheld.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. When the motion was submitted objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.
Where in a pending case application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to '.allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 17; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 491; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected.by the decision of this case; as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed; and consent has not been given.
Leave to file must, therefore, be
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Barnett, 330 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1963)…curiae is ‘not a party to the action, but is merely a friend of the court whose sole function is to advise, or make suggestions to, the court.’ ” Clark v. Sandusky, 7 Cir., 1953, 205 F. 2d 915, 917 See also Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299; Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797, 805 quoting from the Universal Oil Products ease; 2 Modern Fed. Practice Digest, Amicus Curiae p. 660; 3 Words & Phrases, perm, ed., Amicus Curiae p. 478. . “Where a statute gives…
-
United States v. State OF Mich., 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991)…ndship to Advocacy, 72 Yale L.J. 694 (1963). Classical participation as an amicus to brief and argue as a friend of the court was, and continues to be, a privilege within “the sound discretion of the courts,” see Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299 (1903); 4 Am.Jur.2d, Am.Cur § 4 at 113, depending upon a finding that the proffered information of amicus is timely, useful, or otherwise necessary to the administration of justice. Leigh, 535 F.Supp. at 420. Amicus, howe…
-
United States v. Winkler-Koch Eng'g Co., 209 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1953)…attorney has sought permission of the court to appear or file a brief amicus in support of a position advocated by an attorney of record despite the objection of such attorney of record. In the case of Northern Securities Company v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299, the Supreme Court, discussing a “Motion to file brief as amicus curiae” said: “In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their conse…
Authorities Cited
- Green and others v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1 (U.S. 1821)
- State v. The State of Ga., 17 How. 478 (U.S. 1854)
- The Gray Jacket, 18 L. Ed. 646 (U.S. 1866)