Citation network
Hickory Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1894
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
-
Hickory v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 151 U.S. 303 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Hickory v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 151 U.S. 303 (1894) Hickory v. UnitedSearch
-
necessarily dependent upon the duration or quality of the reflection by which the act may have been preceded. Allen v. UnitedSearch
-
in evidence for some other purpose in the cause, the paper in question might be compared with it by the jury. Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
be used for the purposes of comparison, although they may not be admissible for any other purpose in the cause. Birch v. RidgwaySearch
-
Creswell v. JacksonSearch
-
may be made either by witnesses, or, without the intervention of any witnesses at all, by the jury themselves, Cobbett v. KilminsterSearch
-
at the trial for the mere purpose of enabling the jury or witnesses to institute a comparison of hands. Bromage v. RiceSearch
-
Doe v. NewtonSearch
-
Griffits v. IverySearch
-
in the presence of the jury for the purpose of testing his credibility, but as original evidence, as remarked in King v. DonahueSearch
-
as was said in Williams v. StateSearch
-
adopting the language of Patteson, J., in Doe v. SuckermoreSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in either instance papers prepared for the purpose of having the comparison made are objectionable. In Stranger v. SearleSearch
-
itself permanent, that it furnishes, if otherwise admissible, any satisfactory test of genuineness. Coleridge, J., Doe v. SuckermoreSearch
-
allow witnesses to testify against him whose named have not been furnished, if he seasonably asserted his right, Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
other party, inconsistent statements, after proper foundation laid by cross-examination, may be shown, Railway Company v. ArterySearch
-
Melhuish v. CollierSearch
-
is allowed for the purpose of counteracting actually hostile testimony with which the party has been surprised. Adams v. WheelerSearch
-
Greenough v. EcclesSearch
-
Rice v. HowardSearch
-
at any definite period before the fatal act. The learned judge then quoted from the charge in United States v. KingSearch
-
serious deliberation, or it furnishes no excuse. If, in the language of the Court of Appeals of New York in People v. ClarkSearch
-
as those under consideration could not but have a decided influence upon their action. As was said in Allen v. UnitedSearch
-
in the absence of request that that should be done, it would not have been well taken, Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. VolkSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hickory v. UnitedSearch
-
Allen v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
Birch v. RidgwaySearch
-
Cobbett v. KilminsterSearch
-
Bromage v. RiceSearch
-
King v. DonahueSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
Doe v. SuckermoreSearch
-
In Stranger v. SearleSearch
-
Coleridge, J., Doe v. SuckermoreSearch
-
Logan v. UnitedSearch
-
Railway Company v. ArterySearch
-
Adams v. WheelerSearch
-
United States v. KingSearch
-
People v. ClarkSearch
-
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. VolkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial