Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Collins Vs. Loisel

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1922

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

38 entries 9 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. Kelly Vs. Griffin US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1916
  2. Benson Vs. Mcmahon US Supreme Court · May 14, 1888
  3. Keyser Vs. Hitz US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1890
  4. Terlinden Vs. Ames US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1902
  5. Mcnamara Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1913
  6. Rice Vs. Ames US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1901
  7. Charlton Vs. Kelly US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1913
  8. Elias Vs. Ramirez US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1910
  9. Glucksman Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · May 29, 1911
  10. U.S. 309 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court Collins v. Loisel
    Search
  11. U.S. 309 (1922) Collins v. Loisel
    Search
  12. the opinion of the Court. This is the second appeal by Collins in this case. The first was dismissed in Collins v. Miller
    Search
  13. false pretense, it is essential that there be a false representation of a state of things past or present. See State v. Colly
    Search
  14. criminal in both jurisdictions. This was held with reference to different crimes involving false statements in Wright v. Henkel
    Search
  15. U. S. 457 , 127 U. S. 465 , and Greene v. United
    Search
  16. is the principal diplomatic or Consular officer resident in that country, and who he is. Compare 58 U. S. Co. v. Winans
    Search
  17. would justify a conviction not only for cheating, but also of obtaining property under false pretenses. State v. Tessier
    Search
  18. State v. Jordan
    Search
  19. State v. Will
    Search
  20. State v. Seipel
    Search
  21. would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime had been committed in that state. Charlton v. Kelly
    Search
  22. U. S. 456 . If there was such evidence, this Court has no power to review his finding. Ornelas v. Ruiez
    Search
  23. See Glucksman v. Henkel
    Search
  24. wrongful exclusion of specific pieces of evidence, however important, does not render the detention illegal. Charlton v. Kelly
    Search
  25. the accused to await trial, and not to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction. Griffin v. Shine
    Search
  26. Ex parte Glaser, 176 F. 702, 704. In Re Wadge, 15 F. 864, 866, cited with approval in Charlton v. Kelly
    Search
  27. between evidence properly admitted in behalf of the defendant and that improperly admitted is drawn in Charlton v. Kelly
    Search
  28. although they could not have been received by him under the law of the state on a preliminary examination. Elias v. Ramirez
    Search
  29. between the evidence and the complaint is to be decided by the general law and not by that of the state. Glucksman v. Henkel
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Collins v. Loisel
    Search
  31. Collins v. Miller
    Search
  32. See State v. Colly
    Search
  33. Wright v. Henkel
    Search
  34. and Greene v. United
    Search
  35. U. S. Co. v. Winans
    Search
  36. State v. Tessier
    Search
  37. Ornelas v. Ruiez
    Search
  38. Griffin v. Shine
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial