Citation network
Morissette Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 07, 1952
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
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 342 U.S. 246 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
of any mention of intent is not to be construed as eliminating that element from the crimes defined. United States v. BehrmanSearch
-
U. S. 280 , and United States v. BalintSearch
-
to be required by the failure of Congress to express such a requisite and this Court's decisions in United States v. BehrmanSearch
-
could be convicted for selling liquor to an habitual drunkard even if he did not know the buyer to be such. Barnes v. StateSearch
-
of statutes forbidding such sales require no allegation or proof that defendant knew of the adulteration. Commonwealth v. FarrenSearch
-
Commonwealth v. NicholsSearch
-
Commonwealth v. WaiteSearch
-
People v. RobySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tenement House Department of City of New York v. McDevittSearch
-
Price v. SheffieldSearch
-
Italics added.) Irving Trust Co. v. LeffSearch
-
and uniform that it is a jury issue. The settled practice and its reason are well stated by Judge Andrews in People v. FlackSearch
-
Kemp v. StateSearch
-
Even congressional power to facilitate convictions by substituting presumptions for proof is not without limit. Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
In Williams v. NewSearch
-
manslaughter or criminal negligence and the whole range of crimes arising from omission of duty. Cf. Commonwealth v. WelanskySearch
-
it was held that one could not be convicted of selling impure foods unless he was aware of the impurities. Rex v. DixonSearch
-
Regina v. WoodrowSearch
-
of the business and knew nothing about the dumping involved. His knowledge or lack of it was deemed irrelevant. Regina v. StephensSearch
-
that no guilty knowledge or intent need be proved in a prosecution for the sale of adulterated butter, Fizpatrick v. KellySearch
-
L.R. 8 Q.B. 337 (1873), and in Betts v. ArmsteadSearch
-
Italics added.) In Felton v. UnitedSearch
-
For the place of the mental element in offenses against the revenues, see Spies v. UnitedSearch
-
Examples of decision in diverse jurisdictions may be culled from any digest. Most nearly in point are Johnson v. StateSearch
-
Jordan v. StateSearch
-
Fetkenhauer v. StateSearch
-
and Devine v. PeopleSearch
-
only a practical joke must be weighed against an admitted taking of property. Others of like purport are Farzley v. StateSearch
-
Nickerson v. StateSearch
-
People v. WilliamsSearch
-
Schiff v. PeopleSearch
-
Perdew v. CommonwealthSearch
-
People v. ShaundingSearch
-
People v. WillSearch
-
Van Vechten v. AmericanSearch
-
Thomas v. KesslerSearch
-
Barnes v. StateSearch
-
Sandel v. StateSearch
-
Weeks v. StateSearch
-
Heskew v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. BalintSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FarrenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial