Hartranft v. Mullowny
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT ÓF COLUMBIA. The case is stated in the opinion. •
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
On April 17, 1914, an information in behalf of the United States was. filed by the United States attorney in the police court of the District of Columbia against the plaintiff in error (who will be called the petitioner) charging violations of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768. Having first objected to the jurisdiction of the police court by motion to quash, by demurrer, and by special plea in bar, all of which were overruled by that court, petitioner was arraigned upon the information and pleaded not guilty, after which, and before trial on the merits, he filed…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ex Parte LangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Ex Parte Bollman and SwartwoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1807
- Ex Parte YergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Hyde v. ShineSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- McLish v. RoffSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gilchrist Drug Co. v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Glide v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
- Mayer v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1937
- Sherwin v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1942
- Env Tx Citizen Lobby v. ExxonMobilCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2024
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.