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.
GRIFFITH, alias GRIFFIN v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 1910 — 218 U.S. 572 · caselaw · US
General
GRIFFITH, alias GRIFFIN v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
218 U.S. 57254 L. Ed. 1155·Supreme Court of the United States·1910
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
GRIFFITH, alias GRIFFIN v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
No. 515.
Motion to dismiss or affirm.
Submitted November 28, 1910.
Decided December 12, 1910.
Decided on authority of Griffith v. Connecticut, ante, p. 563.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. I. Henry Harris for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Hugh, M. Alcorn for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The parties to this record are the stale as in. No. 514, just decided, ante, p. 563, and the questions involved are the same, the prosecution being for similar offenses against the Connecticut act of 1907. Both cases were tried together. Upon the conviction in this, however, the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment. The two cases were disposed of by the Supreme Court of Errors in one opinion. As the decision in No. 514 is necessarily controlling, it follows that the judgment -of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut must be and it is
Affirmed.