Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Vincent v. California, 1893 — 149 U.S. 648 · caselaw · US
General
Vincent v. California
149 U.S. 64837 L. Ed. 884·Supreme Court of the United States·1893
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Vincent v. California.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.
No. 1316.
Submitted May 1, 1893.
Decided May 15, 1893.-
[MAJORITY]
This case, which will be found reported in 95 California, 425, differs in no essential respect from that of McNulty, just considered. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the writ of error must be Dismissed.
Mr. William H. H. Hart, Attorney General of the State of California, for the motion to dismiss.
Mr. Carroll Cook opposing.