Curtin v. United States, 236 U.S. 96 (1915). · Go Syfert
Search
Curtin v. United States, 236 U.S. 96 (1915). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
110 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 33 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1925 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1925 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Ocasio v. United States (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holte, 236 U.S., at 145 , 35 S.Ct. 271 ("[A] conspiracy with an officer or employé of the government or any other for an offence that only he could commit has been *1433 held for many years to fall within the conspiracy section ... of the penal code"); see also Salinas, supra, at 63-64 , 118 S.Ct. 469 ; Gebardi, supra, at 120-121 , 53 S.Ct. 35 ; Rabinowich, 238 U.S., at 86 , 35 S.Ct. 682 .
discussed Cited "see" William Alfred Reno v. United States (2×)
5th Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 145 , 35 S.Ct. 271, 272 , 59 L.Ed. 504, 506 (1915). 91 I fully agree that the alleged duplicity, if existent, would not be a fatal defect and that a valid conspiracy indictment would lie covering the facts of this case, that is to say that there are ingredients in the conspiracy sought to be alleged which are not present in the completed crime, but for the reasons stated above I would reverse.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Anthony
M.D. Penn. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Holte, 1915, 236 U.S. 140 , at page 145, 35 S.Ct. 271 , at page 273, 59 L.Ed. 504 , L.R.A.1915D, 281, “ * * * impossible to turn the concurrence necessary to effect certain crimes such as bigamy or duelling into a conspiracy to commit them * * * ”; United States v. Katz, 1926, 271 U.S. 354 , at page 355, 46 S.Ct. 513 , 70 L.Ed. 986 ; Gebardi v. United States, supra [ 287 U.S. 112 , 53 S.Ct. 37 ], “* * * where it is impossible under any circumstances to commit the substantive offense without co-operative action, the preliminary agreement between the same parties to co…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Yarborough
cma · 1952 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Holte, 236 US 140 , 59 L ed 504, 35 S Ct 271 , LRA1915D 281; United States v. Katz, 271 US 354 , 70 L ed 986, 46 S Ct 513 ; United States v. Burke, 221 Fed 1014 (CA2d Cir); United States v. Sager, 49 F2d 725 (CA2d Cir); Wharton, Criminal Law, 12th ed, Section 1604.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Tillem
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 145 , 35 S.Ct. 271, 272 , 59 L.Ed. 504 (1915) (female “victim” guilty as a co-conspirator when she willingly participated in her illegal trans portation across state lines); United States v. Beech-nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1192-93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989) (apple juice manufacturer, originally a victim, became co-conspirator with supplier by willingly cooperating with supplier who provided adulterated concentrate).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Moe Tillem, Appeal of Thomas Overton, Desmond Larrier, Astley Campbell, Elissa Cohen-Deutsch, A/K/A \Lisa\"
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140, 145 , 35 S.Ct. 271, 272 , 59 L.Ed. 504 (1915) (female "victim" guilty as a co-conspirator when she willingly participated in her illegal transportation across state lines); United States v. Beech-nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1192-93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 324 , 107 L.Ed.2d 314 (1989) (apple juice manufacturer, originally a victim, became co-conspirator with supplier by willingly cooperating with supplier who provided adulterated concentrate). 38 When we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the govern…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. George Ohlson, United States of America v. William Logan, United States of America v. George Pohley
9th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140 , 35 S.Ct. 271 , 59 L.Ed. 504 (1915).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Corallo
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140 , 35 S.Ct. 271 , 59 L.Ed. 504 (1915); *30 Reno v. United States, 317 F.2d 499, 503-504 (5th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." May v. United States
D.C. Cir. · 1949 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also 2 Wharton, Criminal Law § 3604 (12th ed. 1932). 23 1915, 236 U.S. 140 , 35 S.Ct. 271 , 59 L.Ed. 504 , L.R.A.1915D, 281. 24 7 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 956 , certiorari denied, O’Leary v. United States, 1931, 283 U.S. 830 , 51 S.Ct. 306 , 75 L.Ed. 1443 . 25 2 Cir., 1923, 289 F. 424 . 26 United States v. Dietrich, C.C.Neb. 1904, 126 F. 664 . 27 Gebardi v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 112 , 53 S.Ct. 35 , 77 L.Ed. 206 . 28 United States v. Katz, 1926, 271 U.S. 354 , 46 S.Ct. 513 , 70 L.Ed. 986 . 29 Egan v. United States, 1923, 52 App.D.C. 384 , 287 F. 958 . 30 Rev.Stat. §§ 5323, 5427, 35 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Curtin
v.
United States
No 472.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1915.
236 U.S. 96
Mr. Henry A. Wise, with whom Mr. Henry W. Sackett was on the brief,, for plaintiff in error. ., The Solicitor General for the United States.
McKenna, McReynolds.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was argued and submitted at the same time as Burdick v. United States, just decided, ante, p. 79. Its purpose is to review a judgment for contempt against Curtin upon presentment of the Federal grand jury for refusing to answer certain questions in the same proceeding considered in the Burdick Case in regard to a certain article published in the New York Tribune. Curtin'is a reporter on that paper. He declined to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would tend to incriminate him. At a subsequent hearing a pardon issued by the President was offered him , (it was the same in substance as that offered Burdick) and he was again questioned. He declined to receive the pardon or to answer the questions on the same ground as before. He was, on presentment of the grand jury, adjudged guilty of[*97] contempt, fined as Burdick was, with the same leave to purge himself of the contempt, the court deciding that the pardon was valid and sufficient for immunity. Upon Curtin again refusing to answer, the judgment was made absolute and he was committed to the custody of the United States Marshal.

It will be observed, therefore, the case is almost identical in its facts with the Burdick Case and exactly the same in principle. On the authority of that case, therefore, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to dismiss the proceedings in contempt and discharge Curtin from custody.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.