Supreme Court of the United States, 1873

Ex Parte Robinson

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 1, 1873 · Clifford

86 U.S. 513; 22 L. Ed. 205; 19 Wall. 513; 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1456 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

120 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Price (R.I. 1996)
Crowe v. Smith (5th Cir. 1998)
Brenda Chilcutt v. United States of America, Randell P. Means, in His Individual Capacity (5th Cir. 1993)
Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Co. (6th Cir. 2013)
United States v. Aleo (6th Cir. 2012)
In re: Allen W. Bird, II (8th Cir. 2003)
In re Joseph D. Morrissey (4th Cir. 2002)
Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 957 (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2001)
United States v. Rick Waggoner (8th Cir. 1997)
United States v. D-M Sales Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1995)
Chilcutt v. United States (5th Cir. 1993)
P.G. & H. Coal Co. v. International Union, United Mine Workers (W. Va. 1990)
State v. Thomas (Ala. 1989)
United States of America v. Daniel Klubock (1st Cir. 1987)
State v. Moen (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
Commonwealth v. Zeitlen (Pa. 1987)
Kleiner v. First National Bank (11th Cir. 1985)
In re Grand Jury Witness Chanie Weiss (2d Cir. 1983)
Carter v. Folcarelli (R.I. 1979)
In re Darwin Charles Brown (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Pueblo v. Pérez Díaz (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1971)
STATE Ex Rel OREGON STATE BAR v. LENSKE (Or. 1965)
State v. Lucier (Or. Ct. App. 2024)
Benoit O. Brookens, II v. United States (D.C. 2018)

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

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 eourt 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 Wallace, 364.

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