TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Overton v. Oklahoma

Overton v. State of Oklahoma

Overton v. Oklahoma, 235 U.S. 31 (1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 9, 1914
Docket
No. 40
Judges
White
Citations
235 U.S. 3135 S. Ct. 1459 L. Ed. 1121914 U.S. LEXIS 1043
Syllabus
The court having instructed the jury that if the shipment of liquor within the State was to complete an interstate shipment the local prohibition statute did not apply, the contention that § 4180, Snyder’s Compiled Laws of Oklahoma,, is repugnant to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, held too frivolous to support the jurisdiction of this court to review the judgment of the state court on writ of error. The record in this case not justifying the assumption that the conclusion of guilt could only have been reached by disregarding proof, . this court has no jurisdiction to review the judgment of the state court on writ of error on that ground; it is frivolous.
Summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. The facts are 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 — White

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by Me. Chief Justice White.

The verdict and sentence were on an indictment for illegally moving liquor (§ 4180, Snyder’s Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909). The defense was that the movement was to complete an interstate shipment from Missouri. The court instructed that the statute did not apply to such a shipment and hence if the movement was as asserted, there must be an acquittal. Under this situation' the contention here made that the statute was repugnant to the commerce clause is too frivolous to support jurisdiction. And this is also true of the contention that there is jurisdiction because the facts establish that the conclusion of guilt could only have been reached by plainly disregarding the proof as to the' character of the shipment, thus in fact applying the statute to interstate commerce, 1

since the record affords no justification for the assumption upon which the proposition rests.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

1

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 591 ;

Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 261 ;

Southern Pacific Co.

v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 611 ;

Portland Ry. Co.

v. Oregon R. R. Com'n, 229 U. S. 397, 411-412 ;

Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236, 243-244 ;

Missouri, Kans. & Tex. Ry.

v. West, 232 U. S. 682, 691-692 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1915: 41916: 41917: 21935: 11954: 119152026peak 1915 · 4

Most recent

  1. Taylor v. State1954 OK CR 27, 265 P.2d 733
  2. State ex rel. McKittrick v. American Colony Insurance80 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. 1935)
  3. Cardona v. Porto Rico244 U.S. 645 (1917)
  4. Diaz v. Porto Rico243 U.S. 627 (1917)
  5. Keyes v. Illinois242 U.S. 610 (1916)
  6. White v. Wyoming241 U.S. 655 (1916)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Kan. City Southern Ry. Co. v. C. H. Albers Comm'n Co., 223 U.S. 573 (1912) 111
Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias of Ga., 225 U.S. 246 (1912) 75
Southern Pac. Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U.S. 601 (1913) 64
Miedreich v. Lauenstein, 232 U.S. 236 (1914) 41
Portland Ry. v. R.R. Comm'n, 229 U.S. 397 (1913) 38
Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. West, 232 U.S. 682 (1914) 8

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