Legal Opinion

Bonnifield v. Thorp

District Court, D. Alaska

Decided January 25, 1896No. 439PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DELANEY, District Judge.

While the courts are vested with a large discretion in determining applications of this character, its exercise must be confined to the limits prescribed by statute, which, so far as this court is concerned, are laid down in section 102, pp. 242, 243, Hill’s Code Or. This section provides that the court may, in its discretion, “relieve a party from a judgment, order or other proceeding, taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The only testimony submitted in support of the application is the affidavit of one of the attorneys…

2Cases cited52 opinions

  1. Holker v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
  2. Shearman v. JorgensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Hill v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  4. Deering v. QuiveyOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Booth v. FletcherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  2. Feldman Inv. Co. v. Connecticut General Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
  3. In re Bankshares Corp. of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  4. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. PenwellMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Irving Trust Co. v. Climax Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API