Supreme Court of the United States, 1888

List v. Pennsylvania

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 10, 1888 · Per Curiam

131 U.S. 396; 9 S. Ct. 794; 33 L. Ed. 222; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2047 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. W P. Potter for plaintiff in error., Mr. W. D. Porter for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Dorothy Crooker v. United States (8th Cir. 1963)
Surland v. State (Md. 2006)
United States v. Rorie (United States Court of Appeals For The Armed Forces 2003)
United States v. David Eugene Morton, James M. Martin (8th Cir. 1980)
Durham v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1971)
Bevel v. Com. (Va. 2011)
Ex Parte Estate of Cook (Ala. 2002)
United States v. Christopher (3d Cir. 2001)
State v. Lawrence (Mont. 1949)
Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
Frank v. State (Md. 1948)
Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
Rossi v. United States (8th Cir. 1927)
INTERN. SOC. FOR KRISHNA, ETC. v. Barber (District Court, N.D. New York 1980)
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (District Court, N.D. New York 1980)
Commonwealth v. Culpepper (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972)
Metzger v. O'Donoghue (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Pino v. United States (7th Cir. 1921)
United States v. ANDREW ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER (3d Cir. 2001)
Diversified Numismatics, Inc. v. City of Orlando (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1985)
Commonwealth v. Moyer (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas 1984)
State v. Albers (N.H. 1973)
Hartwell v. State (Alaska 1967)
Melrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
State v. Furth (Wash. 1914)

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

Per curiam

: The’ death of George B. List, the plaintiff in error in this cause, having been suggested in a communication from counsel for defendant in error to the clerk, and it appearing to the court that this is a criminal case, it is considered by the court that this cause has abated. Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the writ of error in this cause be, and the same is hereby,

.Dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.