Maryland v. Soper (No. 3)

270 U.S. 44, 46 S. Ct. 194, 70 L. Ed. 462, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 394
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 1, 1926
Docket25, Original
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 270 U.S. 44 (Maryland v. Soper (No. 3)) 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
Maryland v. Soper (No. 3), 270 U.S. 44, 46 S. Ct. 194, 70 L. Ed. 462, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 394 (1926).

Opinion

270 U.S. 44 (1926)

MARYLAND
v.
SOPER, JUDGE. (No. 3)

No. 25, Original.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued December 7, 1925.
Decided February 1, 1926.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

Messrs. Thos. H. Robinson, Attorney General of Maryland, and Herbert Levy, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, for petitioner.

*45 Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell was on the brief, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is quite like that in No. 24, Original, just decided. It differs, in that here the indictment which was removed from the Circuit Court of Harford County, Maryland, to the District Court of the United States for Maryland was an indictment against E. Franklin Ely for perjury, in the inquiry made by the coroner into the circumstances of the death of Wenger, it being charged that when it was material whether he had seen Lawrence Wenger at the time he (Ely), as a government officer, lay concealed and hidden and watched the bringing of the still, he falsely stated he had not seen Wenger. In all other respects the proceedings were quite like those in the case just decided, and on the principles laid down in that case we must hold that there was no ground for removing the prosecution of Ely for perjury, and that the mandamus to require the remanding of the removal should be made absolute.

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

Related

Dawson v. Vance
329 F. Supp. 1320 (S.D. Texas, 1971)
Grove Press, Inc. v. Evans
312 F. Supp. 614 (E.D. Virginia, 1970)
Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia
337 F.2d 579 (Fourth Circuit, 1964)
Zellner v. Lingo
218 F. Supp. 513 (M.D. Alabama, 1963)
Pugach v. Dollinger
277 F.2d 739 (Second Circuit, 1960)
Criminal Proceedings v. Heisig
178 F. Supp. 270 (N.D. Illinois, 1959)
Butcher & Sherrerd v. Welsh
206 F.2d 259 (Third Circuit, 1953)
Stefanelli v. Minard
342 U.S. 117 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Screws v. United States
325 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Ex Parte Republic of Peru
318 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Hudson Oil Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
52 P.2d 683 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 U.S. 44, 46 S. Ct. 194, 70 L. Ed. 462, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-v-soper-no-3-scotus-1926.