Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Funk Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 11, 1933

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

39 entries 1 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Reid US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  2. Funk v. United
    Search
  3. States - 290 U.S. 371 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Funk v. United
    Search
  4. States, 290 U.S. 371 (1933) Funk v. United
    Search
  5. court, the wife of the defendant on trial for a criminal offense is a competent witness in his behalf. Hendrix v. United
    Search
  6. Page 290 U. S. 372 States, 219 U. S. 79 , and Jin Fuey Moy v. United
    Search
  7. the case here, put their chief reliance on prior decisions of this Court. The government relies on United States v. Reid
    Search
  8. Logan v. United
    Search
  9. Hendrix v. United
    Search
  10. States, 219 U. S. 79 , and Jin Fuey Moy Page 290 U. S. 374 v. United
    Search
  11. U. S. 189 . Petitioner contends that these cases, if not directly contrary to the decisions in Benson v. United
    Search
  12. States, 146 U. S. 325 , and Rosen v. United
    Search
  13. was decided December 5, 1892. Twenty-five years later, this Court had before it for consideration the case of Rosen v. United
    Search
  14. exclusion of the husband or wife is said by this Court to be based upon his or her interest in the event. Jin Fuey Moy v. United
    Search
  15. The public policy of one generation may not, under changed conditions, be the public policy of another. Patton v. United
    Search
  16. ancient rule of the common law under conditions as they now exist we think is not fairly open to doubt. In Hurtado v. California
    Search
  17. Compare Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  18. law is not immutable, but flexible, and, by its own principles, adapts itself to varying conditions. In Ketelsen v. Stilz
    Search
  19. And the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, in Hanriot v. Sherwood
    Search
  20. The Supreme Court of Connecticut, in Beardsley v. Hartford
    Search
  21. The same thought is expressed in People v. Randolph
    Search
  22. It was in virtue of this maxim of the common law that the Supreme Court of Nevada, in Reno Smelting Works v. Stevenson
    Search
  23. in view of the extensive areas of land which had been left open and unfenced and devoted to grazing purposes. Seeley v. Peters
    Search
  24. of the court below, in holding the wife incompetent, is erroneous. But that decision was based primarily upon Hendrix v. United
    Search
  25. States and Jin Fuey Moy v. United
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Funk v. United
    Search
  27. and Jin Fuey Moy v. United
    Search
  28. Benson v. United
    Search
  29. and Rosen v. United
    Search
  30. of Rosen v. United
    Search
  31. Jin Fuey Moy v. United
    Search
  32. Patton v. United
    Search
  33. In Hurtado v. California
    Search
  34. In Ketelsen v. Stilz
    Search
  35. Hanriot v. Sherwood
    Search
  36. Beardsley v. Hartford
    Search
  37. People v. Randolph
    Search
  38. Reno Smelting Works v. Stevenson
    Search
  39. Seeley v. Peters
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial