Northern Securities Company v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 November 1903 |
| Docket Number | No. 277,277 |
| Citation | 48 L.Ed. 299,24 S.Ct. 119,191 U.S. 555 |
| Parties | NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY et al., Appts. , v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
djQ The Chief Justice:
In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. When the motion was submitted, objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.
Where, in a pending case, application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 17, 5 L. ed. 551; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 491, 15 L. ed. 188; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370, 18 L. ed. 646. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected by the decision of this case; as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed and consent has not been given.
Leave to file must, therefore, be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. State of Mich.
...of the court was, and continues to be, a privilege within "the sound discretion of the courts," see Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299 (1903); 4 Am.Jur.2d, Am.Cur Sec. 4 at 113, depending upon a finding that the proffered information of amicus is ti......
-
United States v. Barnett
...or make suggestions to, the court.'" Clark v. Sandusky, 7 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 915, 917 See also Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L. Ed. 299; Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797, 805 quoting from the Universal Oil Products case; 2 Modern Fed. Practi......
-
Tafas v. Dudas
...v. Better Business Bureau, 923 F.Supp. 720, 727 (D.Md.1996)(internal citations omitted); see also Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 556, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299 (1903). However, "[a] motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief ... should not be granted unless the cour......
-
Thalheim v. Greenwich
...the sound discretion of the court...." (Emphasis added.) 4 Am. Jur. 2d, supra, § 8; see also Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 555-56, 24 S. Ct. 119, 48 L. Ed. 299 (1903) ("[w]here in a pending case application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein .........