State v. Lehtola
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.
Lehtola raises six questions in his brief; but eliminating the duplication of phraseology, he has two basic contentions. First, it was error to charge him by information and not by indictment of grand jury. He recognizes the federal and state courts have held a state may proceed to prosecute a person by information and not by indictment of a grand jury as provided in the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. But he argues by so holding the courts have created a “systematic exclusion of dissidents from participating in the federal and state elective processes” and “specifically,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Hurtado v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. AgnewSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- State Ex Rel. Kurkierewicz v. CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Rowan v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. WashingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Panzer v. DoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- State Ex Rel. Unnamed v. ConnorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. DudreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Panzer v. DoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.