Parkinson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stevens v. Biddle (8th Cir. 1924)
- United States v. Armored Transport, Inc., Appellant-Defendant (9th Cir. 1980)
- State v. Chacon (N.M. 1957)
- Briggs v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY (Okla. 1950)
- United States v. Kelly (District Court, E.D. New York 1931)
- United States v. Etheridge (District Court, D. Oregon 1930)
- United States v. Stovall (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1923)
- Ex parte Brede (District Court, E.D. New York 1922)
- De Jianne v. United States (3d Cir. 1922)
- Blanc v. United States (9th Cir. 1919)
- United States v. J. Lindsay Wells Co. (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 1910)
- United States v. London (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1909)
- People v. McNulty (Cal. 1891)
- Medley (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
- Capriglione v. State of Delaware (Del. 2021)
- Wetzel v. Wiggins (Miss. 1956)
- Attorney General Ex Rel. O'Hara v. Montgomery (Mich. 1936)
- United States v. Alamo (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1920)
- United States v. Wells (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1908)
- Stokes v. United States (5th Cir. 1894)
- United States v. Cadwallader (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1893)
- In re Claasen (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
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.
This case comes here on a certificate by the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada, that they were opposed in opinion on certain questions which arose at the hearing of a writ of error for the review of the rulings of the District Court of the district at the trial of Bichard B. Parkinson, on an information by the district attorney, for unlawfully, fraudulently,' and feloniously voting at an election for a representative in Congress from Nevada, and for unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously registering his name as an elector qualified to vote at such election. The prosecution was under §§ 5511 and 55Í2 of the Bevised Statutes, which made the offences charged punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not more than three years, or both. As the imprisonmc ul may be “ for a period longer than one year,” the court can order that it shall be in the' penitentiary. Bev. Stat. $ 5541. This makes the crime “infamous,” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and the prosecution should have been by indictment and not by infer *282 mation. It was so decided by this court, after this case was certified up by tbe Circuit Court, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, and Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348. As the judgment of the District Court must be reversed for this cause; the questions certified have become immaterial, and their determination unnecessary in the final disposition of the case. We, therefore, remand the case without answering them. Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.