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.
RODFORD v. CRAIG, 1809 — 9 U.S. 289 · caselaw · US
General
RODFORD v. CRAIG
9 U.S. 2895 Cranch 289·Supreme Court of the United States·1809
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
RODFORD v. CRAIG.
if the counsel a“ tfe^oause.Hi called, the wrr ot error will b. dismissed,
[MAJORITY]
NO appearance having been entered on the docket for .either party in this cause, no counsel appearing, the court ordered both parties tó be called, and neither of them appearing, the court ordered the writ r ■ , „ i■.r • S of error to be dismissed.
The same order was made in the cases of Banks v. Bastrop, Tompkins v. Tompkins, and Buchannan v. Yeates.