Maryland v. Soper (No. 3)
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 11 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Criminal Proceedings v. Heisig (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1959)
- Butcher & Sherrerd v. Welsh (3d Cir. 1953)
- Ex Parte Republic of Peru (Supreme Court of the United States 1943)
- Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia (4th Cir. 1964)
- Stefanelli v. Minard (Supreme Court of the United States 1951)
- Screws v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
- Dawson v. Vance (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
- Dawson v. Vance (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
- Grove Press, Inc. v. Evans (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1970)
- Zellner v. Lingo (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1963)
- Pugach v. Dollinger (2d Cir. 1960)
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
MARYLAND
v.
SOPER, JUDGE. (No. 3)
Supreme Court of United States.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.