ALVISO
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.
In this 1867 Supreme Court case, the petitioner sought relief after a citation in a lower court proceeding was lost or destroyed, preventing proper appellate review. The Court granted the motion to reinstate the case at the next term, holding that when a clerk's negligence results in the loss of court documents, equity and established judicial practice permit reinstatement of the cause on the docket rather than dismissal, drawing on the precedent of The Palmyra for this remedy based on principles of justice.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
As the omission to return the citation appears to have arisen from the neglect of the clerk, if it had been shown that it remained in the office, a certiorari would have been sent down on a prayer of diminution; but as -it has been satisfactorily proved to have been lost or destroyed, it is not a case for a certiorari.
The Palmyra
*
is an authority for granting the relief sought at the succeeding term of the court in a case like the present. In that case, when the cause was called at the February Term, 1825, upon an inspection of the record, it did not appear from the transcript that there had been a final decree rendered in the court below, and for this reason the appeal was dismissed. At the next term, it having been shown the omission was the error of the clerk in making out the transcript, the cause was reinstated on the docket. Mr. Justice Story says, “ The reinstatement of the cause was founded, in the opinion.of the court, upon the plain principles of justice, and is according to the known practice of other judicial tribunals in like cases.”
Motion "granted.
*
12 Wheaton, 10.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nixon v. The Honorable John J. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…ocess and that the President was subject only to that law which might be fashioned in a court of impeachment. Id. at 484. We deem it significant that the Supreme Court declined to ratify these views. Compare Georgia v. Stanton, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 50, 18 L.Ed. 721 (1867), where the Court declined jurisdiction of a similar bill of injunction even though sub-presidential Executive Branch officials were named as defendants. . Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2660, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). We…
-
Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1907)…t declined to follow it in a common law case and limited its application to the jurisdiction of an appellate court in admiralty cases, which the Chief Justice said was much wider than in a case at common law. In the case of Alviso v. United States, 6 Wall. 457, a case dismissed for want of citation, at a former term, omitted to be returned from neglect of the clerk, was reinstated upon the authority of The Palmyra; but in that case Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for the court, distinctly stated that the omi…
-
Morton Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1979)…ernment, not constitutional text. We review the likely practical effect of our ruling today in text at notes 137-141 infra. . See Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 18 L.Ed. 437 (1866); see also Georgia v. Stanton, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 50, 18 L.Ed. 721 (1867). . Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra note 55. . Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 492 F. 2d 587 (1974). . United States v. Nixon, supra note 59. . See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra no…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence