Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
EX PARTE CLODOMIRO COTA, 1884 — 110 U.S. 385 · caselaw · US
General
EX PARTE CLODOMIRO COTA
110 U.S. 38528 L. Ed. 172·Supreme Court of the United States·1884
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
EX PARTE CLODOMIRO COTA.
ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION FROM THE DISTRICT OF . CALIFORNIA.
Submitted January 22d, 1884.
Decided February 4th, 1884.
Division of Opinion — Jurisdiction.
This court cannot take jurisdiction of a certificate of division in' opinion in proceedings under writ of habeas.corpus, until entry of final judgment, Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U. S. 556 — approved and followed.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Momry for the Hnited States.
No counsel appeared for Clodomiro Cota.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice "Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was decided at the last term in Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U. S. 556, that this court could not take jurisdiction of a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of a Circuit Court in proceedings under a writ of babeas, corpus until final judgment bad been rendered in accordance with tbe opinion-of tbe presiding justice or judge. Tbis is sucb a case, and it is consequently remanded to tbe Circuit Court for further proceedings according to law.