Legal Opinion

United States v. Olmstead

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided April 23, 1925No. 9165PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after: stating the facts as above). It is urged by the United States Attorney that the pleas in abatement are insufficient, in that the pleader states “that the matters and things herein (therein) contained are true as he verily believes”; that none of the grounds for setting aside the indictment as provided by the laws of the state (section 2099, Comp. Stat. Wash.) are present. The defendants contend that their rights have been invaded by the reception of incompetent evidence and by coercion of the foreman of the grand jury by a prohibition agent, and that it is the duty of the court to…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  2. Ex Parte BainSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Crowley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  4. United States v. MorseDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1922
  5. McKinney v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hopkinson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Avila v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
  3. Goodman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1934
  4. People v. EchavarryNew York Supreme Court · 1974
  5. In Re Grand Jury 79-01District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1980

2 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