State v. Sentner
Supreme Court of Iowa
1ConcurrenceHale, C. J.
(specially concurring) — I concur in the result and agree that the case should be reversed on account of the admission of testimony as set out in the majority opinion. I cannot, however, agree with all of the statements in the opinion. Some matters I think should be noticed.
The defendant devotes a great deal of his argument to the application of the criminal-syndicalism statute to the facts charged in the case, and also as to the question of the constitutionality of the statute. These matters are not determined in the majority opinion and it may not be necessary to determine them, but…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Gitlow v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.