Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379 (1876). · Go Syfert
Search
Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379 (1876). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“gross negligence is ordinary negligence with a vituperative epithet”
115 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 42 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang Laboratories, Inc. (ca5, 1991-01-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang Laboratories, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1991 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
gross negligence is ordinary negligence with a vituperative epithet
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Scheidmantel (5×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2005 · confidence medium
In essence, “gross negligence” is merely “negligence with a vituperative epithet.” Id. at 495.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel
D.D.C. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Romie v. Casanova, 91 (1 Otto) U.S. 379, 381, 23 L.Ed. 374 (1876) (private title dispute does not raise federal question).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gay v. Lyons
circtedla · 1877 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Romie v. Casanova, 91 U. S. 379 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Romie Et Al.
v.
Casanova
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 31, 1876.
91 U.S. 379
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. S. O. Houghton and Mr. John Reynolds for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. John A. Grow, contra.
Waite.
15
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

No Federal question is presented by the record in this case. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain lands. Both parties claimed title from the city of San Jose; and the question to be determined was, which of the .two had actually obtained a grant of the particular premises in controversy. The title of the city was not drawn in question. Even if it depended upon'the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and the several acts of Congress to ascertain- and settle private land, claims in California, the case would not be different. Both parties admit that title, and their litigation extends only to’ the determination .of the rights which they have severally acquired under it. The writ is dismissed.