Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Holt Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 31, 1910

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

29 entries 2 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Spies Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Nov 02, 1887
  2. United States Vs. Rosenburgh US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  3. Holt v. United
    Search
  4. States - 218 U.S. 245 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Holt v. United
    Search
  5. States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910) Holt v. United
    Search
  6. and how far, in case of such an inquiry, the discretion of the trial court is subject to review ( United States v. Rosenburgh
    Search
  7. the rest. The abuses of criminal practice would be enhanced if indictments could be upset on such a ground. McGregor v. United
    Search
  8. Radford v. United
    Search
  9. Chadwick v. United
    Search
  10. be set aside by a reviewing court unless the error is manifest, which it is far from being in this case. See Reynolds v. United
    Search
  11. U. S. 131 . If the decisions of the State of Washington are of especial importance, we do not understand Rose v. State
    Search
  12. State v. Croney
    Search
  13. Wash. 122, 125-126, and intervening cases to be overruled by State v. Riley
    Search
  14. treated as more than matter of discretion or as ground for reversal except in very plain circumstances indeed. Mattox v. United
    Search
  15. States, 146 U. S. 140 . See Holmgren v. United
    Search
  16. whether voluntarily or by order, and even if the order goes too far, the evidence, if material, is competent. Adams v. New
    Search
  17. repeated and impressed upon the jury the clearness of the belief they must entertain in order to convict. See Dunbar v. United
    Search
  18. effect. This was correct, and avoided a tendency in the closing sentence quoted from the request to mislead. Agnew v. United
    Search
  19. U.S. Supreme Court Holt v. United
    Search
  20. McGregor v. United
    Search
  21. See Reynolds v. United
    Search
  22. Rose v. State
    Search
  23. State v. Riley
    Search
  24. Mattox v. United
    Search
  25. See Holmgren v. United
    Search
  26. Adams v. New
    Search
  27. See Dunbar v. United
    Search
  28. Agnew v. United
    Search
  29. Hopt v. Utah
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial