State v. Brennan
Citations
- 2 S.D. 384
- 50 N.W. 625
- 1891 S.D. LEXIS 38
Syllabus
<p>1. The prohibition contained in the fourth and sixth articles of the constitution of the United States is not a limitation upon the' states, but exclusively upon federal power. The constitution of the United States was established by the people of the United States for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state establishes a constitution for itself, and in it provides such limitations and restrictions as its judgment dictates. These amendments contain, no expression indicating an intention to apply them to state governments.</p> <p>2. Enactments regulating or prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating liquors raise no question under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the Uniteu States. So far as the right to sell intoxicating liquors exists, it is not one of the rights growing out of citizenship of the United States, and it in no case comes under said amendment of the United States constitution.</p> <p>3. When the bill of exceptions does not contain the testimony taken before the state’s attorney before filing an information, this court will not act upon the question of its sufficiency, or insufficiency, but will presume that the state’s attorney had sufficient evidence before him to sustain his action.</p> <p>4. A verification of an information by a state’s attorney that it is “true to the best of deponent’s knowledge, information, and belief,” is good and sufficient under the statute.</p> <p>5. An omission to state in the caption or commencement of an information the name of the court in which it is to be filed is a defect or imperfection which goes to the form, and does not tend to the prejudice of the defendent in any substantial right upon the merits. The rights of the defendant not being impaired by the omission in the information, it is not good ground for having it quashed or set aside.</p> <p>6. An information stating the time when, the place where, and the person believed to be guilty of the offense,
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding no error where court was not mentioned in caption of information as defendant “could not, by reason of this, have been surprised, misled, left in doubt, or have lost any advantage in the preparation of his defense”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bennett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. HeftelSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1994-03-16· cited 43×
- State v. DominiackSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1983-05-25· cited 20×
- City of Sioux Falls v. WalserSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1922-04-10· cited 20×
- State v. Iron ShellSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1971-11-19· cited 11×
- State v. DeversSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-10-23· cited 8×
- Reeves v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. C.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1909-11-10· cited 2×
- State v. ButlerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-11-20· cited 1×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1877-03-18· cited 1,474×
- Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court· 1833-02-16· cited 561×
- Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1878-05-13· cited 406×
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1888-04-09· cited 387×
- Withers v. BuckleySupreme Court· 1858-01-11· cited 60×
- State v. GilbertSupreme Court of Vermont· 1841-04-15· cited 20×
- United States v. ThompsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan· 1853-10-15· cited 4×
- State v. McCartyWisconsin Supreme Court· 1850-06-15· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.