Citation network
Mattox Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 04, 1895
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
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 156 U.S. 237 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas Syllabus Caha V. UnitedSearch
-
cognizable in the Judicial District of Kansas. Indeed, this point is disposed of by the decision of this Court in Caha v. UnitedSearch
-
King v. JolliffeSearch
-
King v. RadbourneSearch
-
Rex v. SmithSearch
-
country, we know of none of the States in which such testimony is now held to be inadmissible. In the cases of Finn v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Rand. (Va.) 701, Mendum v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Rand. (Va.) 704, and Brogy v. CommonwealthSearch
-
argument of the Court indicated that the result would have been the same if they had been dead. In the case of State v. AtkinsSearch
-
since deceased was rejected by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, but this case was subsequently overruled in Kendrick v. StateSearch
-
testimony of a deceased witness, taken before a committing magistrate, was held to be admissible. See also Johnston v. StateSearch
-
Bostick v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Humphrey 344. The rule in California was formerly against the admission of such testimony, People v. ChungSearch
-
People v. QuriseSearch
-
special provision of the Code applicable to absent and deceased witnesses, which is held to be constitutional. People v. OilerSearch
-
California 101. In the case of State v. CampbellSearch
-
was carefully considered in its constitutional aspect by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. RichardsSearch
-
The subject was also treated at great length by Judge Drummond in United States v. MacombSearch
-
Summons v. StateSearch
-
Brown v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. McO'BlenisSearch
-
State v. BakerSearch
-
State v. HouserSearch
-
State v. AbleSearch
-
Owens v. StateSearch
-
Barnett v. PeopleSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
Robinson v. StateSearch
-
State v. WilsonSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Roberts v. StateSearch
-
State v. CookSearch
-
Dunlap v. StateSearch
-
O'Brian v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. HookerSearch
-
Crary v. SpragueSearch
-
United States v. WoodSearch
-
State v. ValentineSearch
-
Iredell 225. While the precise question has never arisen in this Court, we held in Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
witness whose testimony is about to be introduced. This method of impeachment was approved by this Court in Conrad v. GriffeySearch
-
Railway v. ArterySearch
-
to impeach the witness. The authorities, however, do not recognize this distinction. It is true that, in Wright v. LittlerSearch
-
approved by the Queen's Bench, Lord Mansfield delivering the opinion, and that similar evidence was admitted in Aveson v. KinnairdSearch
-
Page 156 U. S. 247 East, 188, 196, but the authority of these cases was seriously shaken by Stobart v. DrydenSearch
-
The case of Ayers v. WatsonSearch
-
that the witness himself is dead, does not dispense with the necessity of laying the proper foundation. Thus in Stacey v. GrahamSearch
-
The question was Page 156 U. S. 249 further elaborately considered in Runyan v. PriceSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial