Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hyde Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 10, 1912

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

72 entries 4 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. Hyde Vs. Shine US Supreme Court · May 29, 1905
    Relied / Followed
  2. United States Vs. Hirsch US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1879
  3. Benson Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1905
  4. Haas Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1910
  5. Hyde v. United
    Search
  6. States - 225 U.S. 347 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Hyde v. United
    Search
  7. States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912) Hyde v. United
    Search
  8. in more than one district, the Sixth Amendment does not preclude a trial in any of those districts. Armour Packing Co. v. United
    Search
  9. give jurisdiction to the court in the district where the overt acts are performed as to all the conspirators. Brown v. Elliott
    Search
  10. p. 225 U. S. 392 , post. Page 225 U. S. 348 United States v. Kissel
    Search
  11. to the competency of individual jurors must be pleaded with strict exactness and at the first opportunity. Agnew v. United
    Search
  12. States circuit court denied writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, and its action was affirmed by this Court. Hyde v. Shine
    Search
  13. Pettibone v. United
    Search
  14. Page 225 U. S. 358 Dealy v. United
    Search
  15. Bannon v. United
    Search
  16. is language in those cases that, considered by itself, justifies the contention based upon them. In United States v. Britton
    Search
  17. by the averments of acts done by one or more of the conspirators in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. Reg. v. King
    Search
  18. Commonwealth v. Shedd
    Search
  19. The case was followed in Pettibone v. United
    Search
  20. In Dealy v. United
    Search
  21. become liable. Interpreting the provision, it was decided in Hyde v. Shine
    Search
  22. U. S. 76 , that an overt act is necessary to complete the offense. And so it was said in United States v. Hirsch
    Search
  23. and may constitute murder. If the unlawful combination and the overt act constitute the offense, as stated in Hyde v. Shine
    Search
  24. and triable in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction in such place. The case was cited in Benson v. Henkel
    Search
  25. of guilt, inculpating all and subjecting all to punishment. In re Palliser was also applied in Burton v. United
    Search
  26. in all. And the suppositions are not fanciful, as illustrated by a case submitted coincidentally with this. Brown v. Elliott
    Search
  27. our country has become too great for the effective administration of criminal justice. We held in Armour Packing Co. v. United
    Search
  28. preclude a trial of the offense in any of the districts through which the transportation was conducted. See also Haas v. Henkel
    Search
  29. U. S. 473 . Cases are cited which oppose the views we have expressed, and others to support them. In Robinson v. United
    Search
  30. sea, and an overt act done in Middlesex County, it was held that the venue was properly laid in that county. The King v. Bresac
    Search
  31. and Scott, 4 East 164. In the case of King v. Bowes
    Search
  32. an actual conspiracy in that county, and the acts and doings of some of them were wholly in other counties. In People v. Mather
    Search
  33. To the same effect are Commonwealth v. Gillespie
    Search
  34. Noyes v. State
    Search
  35. Commonwealth v. Corlies
    Search
  36. State v. Nugent
    Search
  37. Bloomer v. State
    Search
  38. People v. Arnold
    Search
  39. Fire Ins. Cos. v. State
    Search
  40. State v. Hamilton
    Search
  41. International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth
    Search
  42. Pearce v. Territory
    Search
  43. Ex Parte Rogers, 10 Tex.App. 655, and Raleigh v. Cook
    Search
  44. This is established by the cases which have been cited, and the question will be considered further in Brown v. Elliott
    Search
  45. and Moore v. Elliott
    Search
  46. in behalf of Hyde and Schneider. The plea of the statute as affected by overt acts was considered in United States v. Kissel
    Search
  47. a series of years. And that such a distinction can exist, we have seen, is decided and illustrated in United States v. Kissel
    Search
  48. Demurrers were filed and sustained to the pleas, and, to support the ruling of the court, the government cites Agnew v. United
    Search
  49. the issues of the case to convict some of the defendants and acquit others, and we think the rule expressed in Wright v. Illinois
    Search
  50. Miss. Page 225 U. S. 384 Tel. Co., 20 Ia. 195, and Gottleib Bros. v. Jasper
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial