DUTTON
v.
PALAIRET

U.S. | 1869-11-08
No. 184
19 L. Ed. 165 Supreme Court of the United States (1869) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 1869 U.S. LEXIS 1090 · SCDB 1868-091
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Chase

Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of the court. Mr. David W. Sellers for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. The same questions substantially are presented in this case as in the ease of Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, heretofore decided at this term. The principles settled by that judgment require that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1985)
    …situation ought to be dealt with as a form of necessity rather than duress.’’) (citation omitted). . The narrow limits of the defense are perhaps best illustrated by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. The Diana, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 354, 19 L.Ed. 165 (1869). There, the necessity argument was advanced by the master of a ship trying to run the Union blockade of Confederate ports during the Civil War. A unanimous Court said; It is undoubtedly true that a vessel may be in such distress as to justif…
  • United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1982)
    …to enable them to dramatize, and hence hopefully terminate,” the nuclear program of the United States, the prerequisites to a necessity defense aren’t there. In so ruling, the trial court relied on United States v. The Diana, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 354, 19 L.Ed. 165 (1869); United States v. Simpson, 460 F. 2d 515 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Cullen, 454 F. 2d 386 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Moylan, 417 F. 2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969); Shannon v. United States, 76 F. 2d 490 (10th Cir. 1935); and State of H…
    1 / 3
  • United States v. Lewis, 628 F.2d 1276 (10th Cir. 1980)
    …himself and others,1 which the court did not give.2 We reject the applicability of the defense of necessity asserted here, and with it the right to the instruction. The Supreme Court emphasized in United States v. The Diana, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 354, 19 L.Ed. 165 (1869), that for the necessity defense to be available the case must be one of “absolute and uncontrollable necessity; and this must be established beyond a reasonable doubt . . Any rule less stringent than this would open the door to all sorts of f…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw