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.
Stearns v. The United States, 1866 — 71 U.S. 1 · caselaw · US
General
Stearns v. The United States
71 U.S. 14 Wall. 1·Supreme Court of the United States·1866
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
Stearns v. The United States.
A certiorari for diminution of the record allowed under special circumstances, and where the cause had heen continued till the next term, although the motion for it was made after more than one term had passed since the entry of the case, and contrary to a rule of the court.
The fourteenth rule of this court declares that no certiorari for diminution of the record shall be awarded unless the motion be made at the first term of the entry of the cause, and “unless upon special cause shown to the court accounting satisfactorily for the delay.”
The present case having been continued to the next term, Mr. Gushing asked leave, although more than one term had passed since the entry of the cause, to file a suggestion of diminution of the record. He stated that the counsel in the case in California had been unaware of the rule requiring such a suggestion and-motion to be made at the first term; for which reason they had not sent on the papers at an earlier day; and he submitted the fact as a sufficient reason for granting the motion now, inasmuch as the cause having been already continued till the next term, the granting of it would not cause any delay in the hearing.
In support of this view, he cited Clark v. Hacket and Morgan v. Curtenius.
1 Black, 77.
19 Howard, 8.
[MAJORITY — The Court]
The Court
granted leave, and ordered the certiorari.