Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ex Parte Robinson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1873
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/82521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
86 U.S. 513
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ex Parte Robinson

Excerpt

ex parte robinson - 86 u.s. 513 (1873) u.s. supreme court ex parte robinson, 86 u.s. 19 wall. 513 513 (1873) ex parte robinson 86 u.s. (19 wall.) 513 appeal from the district court for the western district of arkansas an appeal does not lie to this court from an order of the district court disbarring an attorney. the remedy of the party, if any, is by mandamus. see the case as reported, supra. before the application for a mandamus was made to this court as above reported, the petitioner, robinson, had appealed page 86 u. s. 514 from the order of the district court disbarring him. the record being filed, he moved that the case be advanced on the calendar for hearing. mr. justice clifford, after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the court as follows: the petitioner moves the court to advance the case. cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the court to advance the same on motion. still, the motion must be denied, as it is well settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. hence it was held in the case of ex parte bradley, that mandamus from this court to a subordinate court was a proper remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the court issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no jurisdiction to pass the order. whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this court, is not by an appeal. * motion denied. * ex parte bradley, 7 wall. 364.

Full Judgment

Ex Parte Robinson - 86 U.S. 513 (1873)
U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Robinson, 86 U.S. 19 Wall. 513 513 (1873)

Ex Parte Robinson

86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 513

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

An appeal does not lie to this Court from an order of the district court disbarring an attorney. The remedy of the party, if any, is by mandamus. See the case as reported, supra.

Before the application for a mandamus was made to this Court as above reported, the petitioner, Robinson, had appealed

Page 86 U. S. 514

from the order of the district court disbarring him. The record being filed, he moved that the case be advanced on the calendar for hearing.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

The petitioner moves the Court to advance the case. Cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the Court to advance the same on motion. Still, the motion must be denied, as it is well settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. Hence it was held in the case of Ex Parte Bradley, that mandamus from this Court to a subordinate court was a proper remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the court issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no jurisdiction to pass the order.

Whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the Court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this Court, is not by an appeal. *

Motion denied.

* Ex Parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial