TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bucklin v. United States

Bucklin v. United States, 159 U.S. 680 (1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 18, 1895
Docket
Nos. 1; 246
Judges
Harlan
Citations
159 U.S. 68016 S. Ct. 18240 L. Ed. 3041895 U.S. LEXIS 2337
Syllabus
The final judgmént of a court of the United States in a case of thp conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime is not reviewable here except on writ of error; and the Review is confined to questions of law, properly presented.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Hablan

Me. Justice Hablan delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant BucMin was convicted of the crime of perjury-under section 5392 of the Kevised Statutes, and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary for thé term of one and one-half years, and also to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. He seeks a review of that judgment by the present appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed. By section five of the act .of March 3,1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826 , “ appeals or writs of error may be taken from the District Courts or from the .existing Circuit Courts” of the United States directly to this court, in certain enumerated cases, civil and criminal, among others, “in cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.” There was no purpose by that act to abolish the general distinction, at common law, between an appeal and a writ of error. The final judgment of a court of the United States in a case of the conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime is not reviewable here except upon writ of error. Our review of the judgment, when brought here in that form, is confined to questions of law, properly presented by a bill of exceptions, or arising upon the record.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1901: 21904: 11905: 11906: 31911: 11913: 11926: 11940: 11946: 11960: 12010: 119012026peak 1906 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. De Lemos v. United States107 F. 121 (5th Cir. 1901)
  2. United States v. Brown116 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1940)
  3. Pesquera v. United States9 F.2d 758 (1st Cir. 1926)
  4. Rice v. Ames180 U.S. 371 (1901)
  5. Fisher ex rel. Barcelon v. Baker203 U.S. 174 (2010)
  6. Sprinkle v. United States141 F. 811 (4th Cir. 1905)

Most recent

  1. Fisher ex rel. Barcelon v. Baker203 U.S. 174 (2010)
  2. William Belvin, James E. Clanton, Clifton Hawkins and Wallace Hawkins v. United States273 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1960)
  3. United States v. Kovich66 F. Supp. 579 (D. Alaska 1946)
  4. United States v. Brown116 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1940)
  5. Pesquera v. United States9 F.2d 758 (1st Cir. 1926)
  6. Grant v. United States227 U.S. 74 (1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list