MULLER
v.
DOWS
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 Supreme Court procedural case, appellants' counsel attempted to withdraw a written stipulation to submit a case on printed arguments during the first ninety days of the term, but the withdrawal was made after that period had elapsed and without consent of appellees' counsel. The Court held that stipulations between counsel in pending Supreme Court cases cannot be withdrawn unilaterally without consent of the other party or leave of the court upon good cause shown, and ordered the appellants to file a printed argument or show cause why the stipulation should not be enforced, or face submission of the case without their argument.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr, Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Stipulations between counsel relative to the course of proceeding in a cause pending in this court cannot be withdrawn by one party without the consent of the other, except by .leave of the court upon cause shown. The counsel in this case stipulated in writing, on or before July 5, 1876, to submit the cause on printed arguments, under rule 20, during the first ninety days of this term. This stipulation was filed here July 5; but, Oct. 21, the counsel for the appellants notified the counsel for the appellees that he withdrew his agreement.
The counsel for the appellees having filed a printed argument within the ninety days, now asks that the cause be taken up and considered by the court as submitted under the rule.
This we might with propriety do, as, if the desired withdrawal is not assented to, application for the vacation of the stipulation ought to be made here in time to have it disposed of before the expiration of the ninety days. But as we have never before been called upon to settle the practice-applicable to this class of cases, it is now ordered that the appellants cause a printed argument to be filed in their behalf on or before March 6, next, or show good cause why the stipulation for submission made by their counsel should not be enforced against them; and, in default, that the cause be taken up and considered as submitted under the rule,- without argument by the appellants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 434 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1970)…n; the marketing channels; the intent of defendant; evidence of actual confusion; and the strength or weakness of the marks in question. K-S-H Plastics, Inc. v. Carolite, Inc., 408 F. 2d 54, 57 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 825, 90 S.Ct. 69, 24 L.Ed. 76 (1969); Pikle-Rite Company v. Chicago Pickle Co., 171 F.Supp. 671, 675 (N.D.Ill.1959); Syntex Laboratories, Inc. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co., 315 F.Supp. 45, 49 (S.D.N.Y.1970). Plaintiff relies heavily on its long and substantial advertising expenditu…
-
Wright v. Nagle, 101 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1879)…eth rule. The plaintiffs in error ask leave to withdraw their stipulation, and set the cause down for oral argument when reached. We think their showing in support of that motion is insufficient, and. that under the rulé laid down in Muller v. Dows (94 U. S. 277) the stipulation must be enforced. We think, also, that the motion to dismiss must be overruled. It is true, the court below disposed of the case by deciding that the State statutes did not authorize the inferior court to grant Miller an exclusive.…
-
Church v. Colling (In re Aldersgate Found. (M.D. Fla. 1988)…the absence of a clear showing that the matter stipulated is untrue, and then only if the application for such relief is seasonably made, and good cause is shown for granting it. 25 R. C. L. 1099, sec. 6; Smith v. Smith, 90 Fla. 824; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 277; United States v. Davison, 1 Fed. (2d) 465; Brown v. Cohn, 88 Wis. 627; Franklin v. National Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 491; Holley v. Young, 68 Me. 215; Hutchings v. Buck, 32 Me. 277. A motion addressed to the court for relief, sustained by *471proper proof…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence