CLYDE CHANDLER
v.
STATE OF TEXAS; JOHN CHANDLER V. STATE OF TEXAS

U.S. | 1923-01-08
Nos. 173 and 174; Nos. 175 and 176
260 U.S. 708 Supreme Court of the United States (1923) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed upon the authority of Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U. S. 403; United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McCORMICK & Co., Inc. v. Brown, 286 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1932)
    …not affect its validity. Van Oster v. Kansas, supra. Different and higher penalties may be provided by the state law. Edwards v. Georgia, 150 Ga. 754; 105 S. E. 363, affirmed 258 U. S. 613; Chandler v. Texas, 89 Tex. Cr. 306; 232 S. W. 317, affirmed 260 U. S. 708. State legislation imposing punishment for the sale of liquor without a state license may be enforced. Molinari v. Maryland, 141 Md. [*145] 565; 119 Atl. 291, affirmed 263 U. S. 685, 686; Weisengoff v. Maryland, 143 Md. 638; 123 Atl. 107, affirmed 2…
  • Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Wendell, 261 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1923)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw