Supreme Court of the United States, 1867

The Gray Jacket

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 15, 1867

72 U.S. 370; 18 L. Ed. 646; 5 Wall. 370; 1866 U.S. LEXIS 944 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Actions Against Public Employers to Enforce Settlement or Conciliation Agreements (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2003)
Authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Conduct Defensive Litigation (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1984)
Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1984)
Litigation Authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Title VII Suits Against State and Local Governmental Entities (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1983)
Atkins v. United States (Court of Claims 1977)
United States v. Winkler-Koch Engineering Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1953)
Northern Securities Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1903)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

72 U.S. 370 (____)5 Wall. 370

THE GRAY JACKET

Supreme Court of United States.

*371 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court on this point:

The court has considered the question whether counsel shall be heard in this cause on behalf of the Treasury Department, and has instructed me to say that in causes where the United States is a party, and is represented by the Attorney-General or the Assistant Attorney-General, or special counsel employed by the Attorney-General, no counsel can be heard in opposition on behalf of any other of the departments of the government.

In the present case, however, the argument has doubtless proceeded under the impression at the bar that counsel would be heard on behalf of the Treasury Department, and the court is desirous of all the light that can be derived from the fullest discussion. The counsel for the Treasury Department may be heard, therefore, if he sees fit, on behalf of the claimant, and two hours will be allowed for the argument, without prejudice to the time which remains to the counsel who opened the cause, for reply to the Attorney-General and the counsel for the captors.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.