United States v. Hamilton
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Holmes (3d Cir. 1948)
- Kempe v. United States (8th Cir. 1945)
- Conway v. United States (9th Cir. 1944)
- Tudor v. United States (9th Cir. 1944)
- United States v. Basiliko (D.C. 1943)
- Roper v. United States (10th Cir. 1931)
- Luxenberg v. United States (4th Cir. 1930)
- Ramirez v. United States (9th Cir. 1928)
- Gay v. United States (5th Cir. 1926)
- Hill v. United States (8th Cir. 1926)
- Colbeck v. United States (7th Cir. 1925)
- States v. Broude (D. Minn. 1924)
- Endleman v. United States (9th Cir. 1898)
- Jaurez v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1925)
- Juarez v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1925)
- Territory v. Scully (Haw. 1915)
- Carter v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1898)
- Poindexter v. Greenhow (Supreme Court of the United States 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
delivered the opinion of the court.
The certificate of division in this case was made on a division in opinion between the judges on a motion to quash the indictment. As a motion to quash is always addressed to the discretion of the court, a decision upon it is hot error, and cannot be reviewed oh a writ of error. In the case of United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, we decided the precise point, that this court cannot take cognizance of a division of opinion between the judges of a circuit court upon a motion to quash an indictment. This decision was re-affirmed in United States v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251, and in United States v. Canda, decided at October term 1881.
The ease, not being properly before us, is dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.