Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Salinger Vs. Loisel

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 26, 1924

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

33 entries 6 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Cook Vs. Hart US Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1892
  2. New York Vs. Eno US Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1894
  3. Henry Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1914
  4. United States Vs. Kenofskey US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1917
  5. Haas Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1910
  6. United States Vs. Stever US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1911
  7. U.S. 224 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  8. U.S. 224 (1924) Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  9. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the decision was affirmed. Salinger v. United
    Search
  10. conformed to it, and thereby sanctioned it, although announcing no express decision on the point. The cases of Carter v. McClaughry
    Search
  11. Riggins v. United
    Search
  12. letter and the direction being particularly described. The indictment then adds, in an explanatory way ( see Horner v. United
    Search
  13. is the place at which it is brought about in regular course by the agency which he uses for the purpose. United States v. Kenofskey
    Search
  14. prosecute at both places, a question might arise as to whether it should be required to elect between them ( see Haas v. Henkel
    Search
  15. but, as there is no such attempt here, that question need not be considered. The appellant relies on United States v. Stever
    Search
  16. Horner v. United
    Search
  17. Burton v. United
    Search
  18. Hollister v. United
    Search
  19. were committed, save as the defendant assented to a disposal in another division. The practice is illustrated in Logan v. United
    Search
  20. States, 144 U. S. 263 , 144 U. S. 297 , and Rosencrans v. United
    Search
  21. been like that theretofore followed in districts where the less restrictive provisions were in force. See Biggerstaff v. United
    Search
  22. United States v. Chennault
    Search
  23. consents to be tried in another. The circuit court of appeals so held in a well considered opinion in Biggerstaff v. United
    Search
  24. the other way of which we are advised was by the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in United States v. Chennault
    Search
  25. receded from that decision in the cases now before us. Page 265 U. S. 238 The appellant relies on Post v. United
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Salinger v. Loisel
    Search
  27. Salinger v. United
    Search
  28. of Carter v. McClaughry
    Search
  29. Logan v. United
    Search
  30. and Rosencrans v. United
    Search
  31. See Biggerstaff v. United
    Search
  32. Biggerstaff v. United
    Search
  33. Post v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial