MARYLAND
v.
SOPER, JUDGE

U.S. | 1926-02-01
Nos. 3; No. 25
270 U.S. 44 Supreme Court of the United States (1926) Caution
Also reported at: 70 L. Ed. 462 · 46 S. Ct. 194 · SCDB 1925-059 · 1926 U.S. LEXIS 394
Cited by 47 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice 'Taft

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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

  • Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1945)
    …he did was justified by his duty under the federal law, and because he did nothing else on which the prosecution could be based.” Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9, 33. And see Maryland v. Soper (No. 2), 270 U. S. 36; Maryland v. Soper (No. 3), 270 U. S. 44; Colorado v. Symes, 286 U. S. 510. To the suggestion that such a limited construction of the removal statute enacted for the protection of the United States officers would restrict its effectiveness, the answer was that if Congress chose to afford…
  • Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1951)
    …enner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240. It has received striking confirmation even where an important countervailing federal interest was .involved. Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9; Maryland v. Soper (No. 2), 270 U. S. 36; Maryland v. Soper (No. 3), 270 U. S. 44.2 These considerations have informed our construction of the Civil Rights Act. This Act has given rise to differences of application here. Such differences inhere in the attempt to construe the remaining fragments of a comprehensive enactment, dism…
  • Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943)
    …situations the only appropriate remedy is corrective legislation. Of the same nature were four other cases, three suits by Maryland and one by Colorado. Maryland v. Soper (1), 270 U. S. 9; Maryland v. Soper (2), 270 U. S. 36; Maryland v. Soper (3), 270 U. S. 44; Colorado v. Symes, 286 U. S. 510. These cases were not ordinary claims by a state against one of its citizens for which the state courts are the appropriate tribunals, see California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U. S. 229. They were in effect sui…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw