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. Spicer, 1872 — 82 U.S. 51 · caselaw · US
General
United States v. Spicer
82 U.S. 5115 Wall. 51·Supreme Court of the United States·1872
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
Note.
At the same time was adjudged — it having been previously argued by Mr. G. H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States, and by Mr. James Hughes, contra — the case of the
United States v. Spicer,
[MAJORITY]
the facts of which were very similar to those of Smoot’s case, above reported. Judgment had been given below in favor of Spicer. The court now announced that the principles set forth in Smoot’s case, which they had just decided, must govern Spicer’s case also. The judgment in it was accordingly reversed, with directions to the Court of Claims to render judgment
In favor of the United States.