PUBLIC SCHOOLS
v.
WALKER
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 petition for reargument in a case involving public schools and Walker, applying its established rule that reargument will only be granted if a justice who voted with the majority desires it. The Court reaffirmed that counsel may submit written petitions suggesting important points, but reargument will be denied as a matter of course unless a concurring justice moves for rehearing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE now delivered' the opinion of the court.
No member of the court who concurred in the judgment desires a reargument, and the petition must, therefore, be denied.
The rule on this subject, long since established, was stated by Chief Justice Taney at the December Term, 1852, in these words:
“ No reargument will be granted in any case unless a member of the court who concurred in the judgment desires it, and when that is the case it will be ordered without waiting for the application of counsel.'’
The grounds of this rule were fully explained in that case, and need not be restated.*
Where the court does not on its own motion order a rehearing, it will be proper for counsel to submit without argument, as has been done in the present instance, a brief written or printed petition or suggestion of the point or points thought important. If upon such petition or suggestion any judge who concurred in the decision thinks proper to move for a rehearing the motion will be considered. If not so moved the rehearing will be denied as of course.
*
Brown v. Aspden, 14 Howard, 25; United States v. Knight’s Adm., 1 Black, 489.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
-
Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1881)…r the adjournment of the court for the term at which the judgment was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court. Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S. 107 ; Public Schools v. Walker, [*416] 9 Wall. 603 ; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet 488; United States v. The Brig Glamorgan, 2 Curt. C. C. 236; Bradford v. Patterson, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 464; Ballard v. Davis, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.)…
-
Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1907)…ade after the adjournment of the court for the term at which the judgment was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court. Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S. 107; Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488; United States v. The Brig Glamorgan, 2 Curt. C. C. 236; Bradford v. Patterson, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 464; Ballard v. Davis, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.)…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence