Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 U.S. 428

1 S. Ct. 417

27 L. Ed. 237

School District v. Hall

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1882

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1882-10

Motion to dismiss a writ .of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, with which is united a motion to affirm.

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A failure to annex to or return with a writ of error an assignment of errors, as required by Section 997 of the Revised Statutes, is no ground for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. If an assignment is filed in accordance with the requirements of Par. 4, Rule 21, it will ordinarily be enough. There is not in this case such a color of right to a dismissal as to make it proper for us to consider the motion to affirm.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hanson v. C. B. & Q. R. R.

Relies on Whitney v. Cook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), Collins v. Miller (1920)

23 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

13018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A writ of error will not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction by reason of a failure to annex thereto or return therewith an assignment of errors, pursuant to the requirements of sect. 997 Rev. Stat.

¶2Motion to dismiss a writ .of error to the Circuit United States · Case Law">Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, with which is united a motion to affirm.

¶3Mr. Walter FT. Smith and Mr. Alexander T. Britton in support of the motions.

¶4Mr. Galusha Parsons, contra.

¶5*429Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶6delivered the opinion of the court. .

¶7A failure to annex to or return with a writ of error an assignment of errors, as required by. sect. 997 of the Revised Statutes, is no ground for dismissal for want of jurisdiction. If an assignment is filed in accordance with the requirements of par. 4, Rule 21, it will ordinarily be enough.

¶8There is not in this case such a color of right to a dismissal as to make it proper for us to consider the motion to affirm. Whitney v. Cook, 99 U. S. 607.

¶9Motions denied.

/106/us/428 · .json · Public domain