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.
UNITED STATES v. CANDA, 1882 — 154 U.S. 674 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. CANDA
154 U.S. 67426 L. Ed. 1069·Supreme Court of the United States·1882
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
UNITED STATES v. CANDA.
A CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 257.
Submitted April 3, 1882.
Decided April 10, 1882.
United Staten v. Uosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, and United States v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251, followed.
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff.
No-appearance for defendants.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case comes here on a certificate of division as to question./ arising on a motion to quash an information, and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on the authority of United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, and United States v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251. It is consequently so ordered. Dismissed.