Citation network
Sherman Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1958
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
-
Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 356 U.S. 369 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
request. Pp. 356 U. S. 375 -376. (g) This Court adheres to the doctrine of the Court's opinion in Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 240 F.2d 949. We granted certiorari. 353 U.S. 935. In Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
doctrine of entrapment according to principles announced in the separate opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts in Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
case, the Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion as we do as to the evidence discussed so far. See United States v. ShermanSearch
-
Lutfy v. UnitedSearch
-
Wall v. UnitedSearch
-
Butts v. UnitedSearch
-
in affirming convictions, held that the issue of entrapment had been properly submitted to the jury. United States v. LindenfeldSearch
-
United States v. BrandenburgSearch
-
Demos v. UnitedSearch
-
Nero v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. CeroneSearch
-
Louie Hung v. UnitedSearch
-
Ryles v. UnitedSearch
-
Cratty v. UnitedSearch
-
the issue of entrapment was either not submitted to the jury or was submitted on improper instructions. United States v. ShermanSearch
-
United States v. SawyerSearch
-
Lutfy v. UnitedSearch
-
Yep v. UnitedSearch
-
and sustained a claim of entrapment by government officers as a defense to an indictment was, apparently, Woo Wai v. UnitedSearch
-
Instead, it accepts without reexamination the Page 356 U. S. 379 theory espoused in Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
of each case or have failed after penetrating effort to define a satisfactory generalization, see, e.g., United States v. BeckerSearch
-
on behalf of the Government to bring about conviction cannot be countenanced. As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
McNabb v. UnitedSearch
-
not have occurred. But it is perfectly clear from such decisions as the decoy letter cases in this Court, e.g., Grimm v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
In Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
See United States v. ShermanSearch
-
United States v. LindenfeldSearch
-
Woo Wai v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. BeckerSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Grimm v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial