Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Horner Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 30, 1893

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

35 entries 35 unlinked
Show
  1. Horner v. United
    Search
  2. States - 147 U.S. 449 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Horner v. United
    Search
  3. States, 147 U.S. 449 (1893) Horner v. United
    Search
  4. to lotteries and gift concerts. In United States v. Zeisler
    Search
  5. was defined to be 'a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance,' and the same definition is given in Thomas v. People
    Search
  6. Ill. 160, and Dunn v. People
    Search
  7. In Ballock v. State
    Search
  8. In Long v. State
    Search
  9. of the people by prohibiting every scheme and device bearing any semblance to lottery or gambling. In Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  10. what have been held to be lottery tickets by the courts of the several states, reference may be made to Commonwealth v. Chubb
    Search
  11. Dunn v. People
    Search
  12. Thomas v. People
    Search
  13. Chavannah v. State
    Search
  14. Commonwealth v. Sheriff
    Search
  15. Holoman v. State
    Search
  16. State v. Lumsden
    Search
  17. N.C. 572, where a like device was held to be a lottery, and Commonwealth v. Wright
    Search
  18. Mass. 250. Cases in England are to the same effect. In Reg. v. Harris
    Search
  19. and also to the chance of a greater value than a shilling, was an illegal lottery within the statute. In Sykes v. Beadon
    Search
  20. by chance and unequally, and Sir George Jessel, Master of the Rolls, characterized the scheme as a lottery. In Taylor v. Smetten
    Search
  21. a lottery within the meaning of the statute. The only case of importance to the contrary is that of Kohn v. Koehler
    Search
  22. The case of Ex Parte Shobert, 70 Cal. 632, merely followed the ruling in Kohn v. Koehler
    Search
  23. was sought to be raised in the case of Horner v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Horner v. United
    Search
  25. In United States v. Zeisler
    Search
  26. and Dunn v. People
    Search
  27. In Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  28. Commonwealth v. Chubb
    Search
  29. and Commonwealth v. Wright
    Search
  30. In Reg. v. Harris
    Search
  31. In Sykes v. Beadon
    Search
  32. In Taylor v. Smetten
    Search
  33. of Kohn v. Koehler
    Search
  34. Kohn v. Koehler
    Search
  35. of Horner v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial