Brown v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE PIPTH CIRCUIT. Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the District Court upon a conviction of murder in the second degree. The facts are given in the opinion, post, 341. The court below erred in hot holding that the indictment upon its face did not charge any offense either against the laws of the United States, or within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE PIPTH CIRCUIT. Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the District Court upon a conviction of murder in the second degree. The facts are given in the opinion, post, 341. The court below erred in hot holding that the indictment upon its face did not charge any offense either against the laws of the United States, or within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It was error to instruct the jury that petitioner, though' in a place where he had a right to be and though the deceased was…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
The petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree committed upon one Hermes at a place in Texas within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 257 Fed. Rep. 46. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 250 U. S. 637. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the indictment is sufficient, inasmuch as it does not allege that the place of the homicide was acquired by the United States “for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or other needful building,” although it does allege that it…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Battle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Rowe v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Baltrip v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1891
3Cited by169 opinions
- Lamont v. New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- State v. KellySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Vanessa Abraham, in Her Own Right and as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Abraham, Deceased, and on Behalf of Robert Christopher Abraham, Jr., Labreea Von Abraham and Taquan Carey, the Minor Children of Decedent Cna Insurance Company (Intervenor-Plaintiff in d.c.) v. Kimberly Raso, Badge No. 243, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as a Township of Cherry Hill Police Officer the Township of Cherry Hill Cherry Hill Center, Inc. The Rouse Company of New Jersey, Inc. The Rouse Company MacY East Inc. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Intervenor-Defendant in d.c.) Kimberly Raso Joris Hoogendoorn v. The Estate of Robert C. Abraham, Deceased Vanessa Abraham, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert C. Abraham Vanessa Abraham, Individually MacY Department Store John Doe(s), a Fictitious Name or Names, Jointly Severally or in the Alternative Vanessa Abraham, in Nos. 98-5405. Kimberly Raso Joris Hoogendoorn, in Nos. 98-5406Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Richard Vos v. City of Newport BeachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- People v. RiddleMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
164 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.