State v. Shady
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
The respondent was convicted of tapping the wares of the Montpelier & Barre Light and Power Corporation and using electric current therefrom without the consent of that corporation. Under an exception saved when, at the close of the evidence, his motion for a directed verdict was overruled, he challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which he is charged (G-. L. 6973) on the ground that it is repugnant to the equality provisions of both State and federal Constitutions.
The respondent’s real ground of complaint is that this statute makes it a crime to so use the current from a line…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Buchanan v. WarleySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Clark v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Cuthbertson v. Union Pacific Coal Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1936
- State v. ShadySupreme Court of Vermont · 1927