Schick v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
• ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The proceedings are by way of criminal information to impose the penalty provided for violation of section 11,' of the oleomargarine act. They are directed against the persons and do not seek to forfeit their property. They are, therefore, not penal actions but criminal prosecutions..
Read the full summary
• ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The proceedings are by way of criminal information to impose the penalty provided for violation of section 11,' of the oleomargarine act. They are directed against the persons and do not seek to forfeit their property. They are, therefore, not penal actions but criminal prosecutions.. “Civil proceedings” would seem to include only those in which the object sought is the forfeiture of property, or the recovery of a judgment for the amount of the prescribed…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brewer
The constitutionality of the oleomargarine legislation hav*67ing been settled in McCray v. United States, just decided, there is in these two cases only a single question. The plaintiffs in error were severally prosecuted by information in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, under section 11 of the act of August 2, 1886, 24 Stat. 209, which reads: “That every person who knowingly purchases or receives for sale any oleomargarine which has not been branded or stamped according to law shall be liable to a penalty of fifty dollars for each such offense. ”
In…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- United States v. Wong Kim ArkSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Callan v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Ex Parte WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by252 opinions
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- People v. SeabergNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- People v. BradshawNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Department of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Patton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
247 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.