 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Reynolds v. United States,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 6, 1879, Decided; OCTOBER, 1878, Term
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant married a second wife while his first wife was still living. Defendant was convicted of bigamy at a trial where questioned jurors had acknowledged forming some opinion on the case prior to trial, but indicated an ability to view the evidence impartially. Further, the prosecution admitted into evidence testimony of the second wife given at a different trial charging defendant with bigamy. The Court found the 15 person grand jury that indicted defendant was proper because the statute governing territorial courts was applicable. The Court found the question of whether a juror was impartial to be an issue of fact that was reversible only for clear error. The Court determined that defendant had not met his burden of showing a juror's actual opinion raising the presumption of partiality. The Court decided that the introduction of the second wife's former testimony was proper because she was made unavailable by defendant.
|
|||||
| Hurt v. Hollingsworth,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 24, 1879, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The landowner filed a petition setting forth that the landowner was the owner of the premises, which he purchased in June, 1874. The purchaser filed an answer to this petition in the Circuit Court and admitted that the landowner was in possession of the premises, and had obtained a deed. The lower court held that the landowner take nothing by his action, and that the purchaser recover the title and possession of the property, and also a sum of money. The court reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the purchaser. The court held that the court below should have granted the motions of the landowner. Moreover, the court concluded that there was an additional reason for remanding the case, that the evidence as to the abandonment of the homestead of the landowner was very unsatisfactory, and left great doubt in the court's mind whether the conclusion reached by the court below on this point was correct. The court held that a homestead could not be considered as abandoned when it was occupied by tenants and the owner was temporarily residing elsewhere.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
