Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lanham v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1935No. 26,235Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Roll, J.

—I concur in the reversal of the judgment in this action, but I cannot agree with the reasoning of the majority of the court or the interpretation placed by them upon the statute in question.

There is no sounder or better settled rule of criminal law, than the one relating to certainty and definiteness. From the very nature of things it is altogether necessary that a criminal statute, to be enforcable, must so clearly and so definitely define the crime that every one could be able to determine with certainty when he is violating the statute. This rule of law was very…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. DeyU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · 1888
  3. State ex inf. Crow v. West Side Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  4. Railroad Commission v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896

3 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