Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sorrells Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 19, 1932

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

64 entries 4 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Lynch US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1890
  2. Hawaii Vs. Mankichi US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1903
  3. United States Vs. Healy US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1964
  4. United States Vs. Katz US Supreme Court · May 24, 1926
  5. Sorrells v. United
    Search
  6. States - 287 U.S. 435 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Sorrells v. United
    Search
  7. States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) Sorrells v. United
    Search
  8. defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises. Grimm v. United
    Search
  9. Goode v. United
    Search
  10. Rosen v. United
    Search
  11. Andrews v. United
    Search
  12. Price v. United
    Search
  13. Bates v. United
    Search
  14. United States v. Reisenweber
    Search
  15. Aultman v. United
    Search
  16. case of a sale of liquor to an Indian who was disguised so as to mislead the accused as to his identity. United States v. Healy
    Search
  17. Voves v. United
    Search
  18. second class are found cases such as those of larceny or rape where want of consent is an element of the crime. Regina v. Fletcher
    Search
  19. Rex v. McDaniel
    Search
  20. Connor v. People
    Search
  21. Williams v. Georgia
    Search
  22. United States v. Whittier
    Search
  23. State v. Adams
    Search
  24. Rex v. Egginton
    Search
  25. Regina v. Johnson
    Search
  26. Saunders v. People
    Search
  27. People v. McCord
    Search
  28. Allen v. State
    Search
  29. Love v. People
    Search
  30. limits for the doctrine of entrapment. While this Court has not spoken on the precise question ( see Casey v. United
    Search
  31. Circuit, and no decision in that circuit suggesting a different view has been brought to our attention. See Capuano v. United
    Search
  32. Lucadamo v. United
    Search
  33. Zucker v. United
    Search
  34. Gargano v. United
    Search
  35. Cermak v. United
    Search
  36. O'Brien v. United
    Search
  37. Butts v. United
    Search
  38. Woo Wai v. United
    Search
  39. to reach its conclusion only by declining to follow the rule which it had laid down in its earlier decision in Newman v. United
    Search
  40. The federal courts have generally approved the statement of Circuit Judge Sanborn in the leading case of Butts v. United
    Search
  41. of the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury to that effect. In Newman v. United
    Search
  42. law in those circumstances, he intentionally breaks the law in the only sense in which the law considers intent. Ellis v. United
    Search
  43. itself, to protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its courts. Casey v. United
    Search
  44. of the law and producing absurd consequences or flagrant injustice has frequently been condemned. In United States v. Palmer
    Search
  45. In United States v. Kirby
    Search
  46. found in Puffendorf and Plowden. Id., pp. 74 U. S. 486 -487. Applying this principle in Lau Ow Bew v. United
    Search
  47. animo revertendi, and sought to reenter it on their return to their business and their homes. And, in United States v. Katz
    Search
  48. See, to the same effect, Heydenfeldt v. Daney
    Search
  49. Carlisle v. United
    Search
  50. Oates v. National
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial