Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390 (1888). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. Conger, 131 U.S. 390 (1888). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1906 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1906 1966 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. . . .”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it · Neutral (inherited from the case)
    q2 “persistent renewal of the application . . . especially upon the same reasons once overruled . . . .”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it · Neutral (inherited from the case)
      Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
      Williams
      v.
      Conger
      105.
      Supreme Court of the United States.
      Oct 22, 1888.
      Published opinion
      131 U.S. 390
      1888 U.S. LEXIS 2043
      Mr. Eugene Williams for both petitions.
      Bradley.
      Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
      Mr. Justice Bradley

      delivered the opinion of the court.

      Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, • and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.