Cantwell v. Connecticut

Supreme Court

Cantwell v. Connecticut

309 U.S. 626, 60 S. Ct. 589

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 26, 1940

DocketNo. 632

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 309 U.S. 626 (Cantwell v. Connecticut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 309 U.S. 626, 60 S. Ct. 589 (1940).

Pincite

Opinion

With respect to the appeal of all appellants from the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction on the third count of the information, probable jurisdiction is noted. The appeal of Jesse Cantwell from the. judgment of the Supreme [627]*627Court affirming the judgment of conviction on the fifth count is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. §237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon that appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is granted.

Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and Hayden C. Covington for appellants. Messrs. William L. Hadden, Edwin S. Pickett, Francis A. Pallotti, Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard F. Corkey, Assistant Attorney General, and Luke H. Stapleton for ap-pellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

With respect to the appeal of all appellants from the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction on the third count of the information, probable jurisdiction is noted. The appeal of Jesse Cantwell from the. judgment of the Supreme [627]*627Court affirming the judgment of conviction on the fifth count is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. §237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937). Treating the papers whereon that appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is granted.

Messrs. Joseph F. Rutherford and Hayden C. Covington for appellants. Messrs. William L. Hadden, Edwin S. Pickett, Francis A. Pallotti, Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard F. Corkey, Assistant Attorney General, and Luke H. Stapleton for ap-pellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 U.S. 626, 60 S. Ct. 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantwell-v-connecticut-scotus-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack