Ex Parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 (1886). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 (1886). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
111 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Deere & Co. v. First National Bank of Clarksdale (miss, 2009-06-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deere & Co. v. First National Bank of Clarksdale
Miss. · 2009 · confidence medium
Moore v. Molpus, 578 So.2d 624, 641 (Miss.1991) (“[W]hen inconsistent final judgments are rendered in two actions, the judgment more recent in time is given conclusive effect in a later action.” (quoting Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., 117 U.S. 559, 566 , 6 S.Ct. 855, 857-58 , 29 L.Ed. 994, 997 (1886); Reimer v. Smith, 663 F.2d 1316, 1327 (5th Cir.1981); Garden Suburbs Golf & Country Club v. Murrell, 180 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir.1950); Donald v. J.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Moore v. Molpus
Miss. · 1991 · confidence medium
Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., 117 *642 U.S. 559, 566, 6 S.Ct. 855, 857-58 , 29 L.Ed. 994, 997 (1886); Reimer v. Smith, 663 F.2d 1316, 1327 (5th Cir.1981); Garden Suburbs Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Murrell, 180 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir.1950); Donald v. J.J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fay v. Noia (2×)
SCOTUS · 1963 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516 ; In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278 ; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U. S. 100 ; In re Frederick, 149 U. S. 70 ; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231 ; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153 ; United States ex rel.
Ex Parte Fonda
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 29, 1886.
117 U.S. 516
. Mr. William, E Earle, Mr. Edwin F.Conely, and Mr. Eranle P.I Guise for the motion.
Waite.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published
.Mn. -Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied on the authority of Ex parte Royall, ante 241. No reason is suggested why the Supreme Court of the State may not review the judgment of the Circuit Court of the county upon the question which is raised as to the applica-tidn of the statute, under which the. conviction has been had, to embezzlements by -the servants and clerks 6f national banks,- . nor why it should not be permitted to do, so without interfer- . ence by the courts of the United States. The question appears \to be one'which, if properly presented by the record, may be reviewed in this court after a decision py the Supreme Court adverse to the petitioner. The case as made by the motion papers is not one which, under the principles settled in RoyalVs Oase, requires this court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for a review of-the judgment by writ of error.

: Motion denied. .