Legal Opinion
Hicks v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 5, 1964No. 3340PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Chief Judge.
Our Code provides that certain classes of persons shall be deemed vagrants. One such class is:
“Any person leading an immoral or profligate life who has no lawful employment and who has no lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source.” Code 1961, 22-3302(3).
Appellant was convicted of vagrancy under this classification. On this appeal no contention is made that the evidence was insufficient to bring appellant within the classification, and the record contains no recital of the factual situation upon which the arrest and conviction were based. Appellant…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Jordan v. De GeorgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. PetrilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hattie Mae Ricks v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Fenster v. LearyNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
- Wheeler v. GoodmanDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1969
- Baker v. BindnerDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1967
- In Re EllisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.