Commonwealth v. Pope
Commonwealth v. Pope
103 Mass. 440
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Finch v. W. R. Roach Co. (Mich. 1940)
- State v. Japone (Iowa 1926)
- State v. Griffin (S.C. 1924)
- McGarry v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1918)
- People v. Sallow (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1917)
- State v. Cerciello (N.J. 1914)
- People v. Jennings (Ill. 1911)
- State v. Fuller (Mont. 1906)
- Miera v. Territory of New Mexico (N.M. 1905)
- Krens v. State (Neb. 1905)
- Russell v. State (Neb. 1902)
- Hopt v. Utah (Supreme Court of the United States 1887)
- Commonwealth v. Welch (Mass. 1886)
- People v. Hopt (Utah 1886)
- Yahn v. City of Ottumwa (Iowa 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
These exceptions are groundless and frivolous. Whenever evidence of the condition of clothes or other articles of personal property is competent and material, their condition may be described by witnesses, without producing the articles themselves. The correspondence between boots and footprints is a matter requiring no peculiar knowledge to judge of, and as to which any person who has seen both may testify.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.