Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Wend. 290

Mithell v. Allen

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1835

New York Supreme Court · decided 1835-03-19

The defendant moved to vacate a rule entered at a previous special term denying a motion made by him, alleging that the grounds upon which the former motion was denied were now satisfactorily explained.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1835-03-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1874

5 state decisions

2018351840185018601870decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

¶2The motion cannot be heard. It is the settled practice that a motion cannot be renewed without leave of the court. The case of Standard v. Williams decides nothing to the contrary of such practice it is there said, the party may apply to the court, upon notice to vacate the rule denying his motion. So he may: but not without leave of the court previously obtained, which is all ways granted, if, in the circumstances of the opposition, there is any thing to excite suspicion of unfairness, or a belief that the party moving is taken by surprise. Indeed it is not unusual for the court, without application, to-annex such leave to. a denial of a motion.

/12/wend/290 · .json · Public domain