Supreme Court of the United States, 1886

Ex Parte Fonda

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 29, 1886 · Waite

117 U.S. 516; 6 S. Ct. 848; 29 L. Ed. 994; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1869 (United States Reports)

Counsel

. Mr. William, E Earle, Mr. Edwin F.Conely, and Mr. Eranle P.I Guise for the motion.

Cases that cite this one

32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Noia, Relator-Appellant v. Edwin M. Fay, as Warden of Greenhaven Prison, State of New York (2d Cir. 1962)
Fay v. Noia (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
In re Dowd (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado 1904)
United States Ex Rel. John Kozicky v. Edward M. Fay (2d Cir. 1957)
United States ex rel. Kozicky v. Fay (2d Cir. 1957)
Gebhart v. Amrine (10th Cir. 1941)
Groseclose v. Plummer (9th Cir. 1939)
Palmer v. McCauley (9th Cir. 1939)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
Darr v. Burford (Supreme Court of the United States 1950)
Ex parte Marrin (District Court, E.D. New York 1908)
Ex parte Caldwell (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern West Virginia 1905)
In re Matthews (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1902)
Ex parte McMinn (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama 1901)
Brown v. Walker (Supreme Court of the United States 1896)
New York v. Eno (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)
Salinger v. Loisel (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
Urquhart, Sheriff, v. Brown (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
Urquhart v. Brown (Supreme Court of the United States 1907)
Minnesota v. Brundage (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
Davis v. Burke (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
Markuson v. Boucher (Supreme Court of the United States 1899)
United States ex rel. Scott v. McAleese (3d Cir. 1899)
Tinsley v. Anderson (Supreme Court of the United States 1898)
Nesbit v. Hert (United States District Court for the District of Indiana 1898)

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

.Mn. -Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

■This motion is denied on the authority of Ex parte Royall, ante 241. No reason is suggested why the Supreme Court of the State may not review the judgment of the Circuit Court of the county upon the question which is raised as to the applica-tidn of the statute, under which the. conviction has been had, to embezzlements by -the servants and clerks 6f national banks,- . nor why it should not be permitted to do, so without interfer- . ence by the courts of the United States. The question appears \to be one'which, if properly presented by the record, may be reviewed in this court after a decision py the Supreme Court adverse to the petitioner. The case as made by the motion papers is not one which, under the principles settled in RoyalVs Oase, requires this court to act in advance of the orderly course of proceeding for a review of-the judgment by writ of error.

: Motion denied. .

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