Supreme Court· 1/13/1941

Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.

Citations

312 U.S. 1
61 S. Ct. 422
85 L. Ed. 479
1941 U.S. LEXIS 1032

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the federal analog to NRCP 35 is procedural because it is \the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law\
stating that the procedural rules that this Court promulgates, “if they are within the authority granted by Congress, repeal” a prior inconsistent procedural statute
reasoning that “the phrase ‘substantive rights’ ” embraces only those state rights that are sought to be enforced in the judicial proceedings
holding that Rule 35 does not violate the Rules Enabling Act
noting that the federal jurisdiction created by statute may not be extended or restricted by court-enacted rules
noting that the federal jurisdiction created by statute may not be extended or restricted by court-enacted rules

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Roberts, Frankfurter, Black, Douglas, Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

538 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.