Skip to main content

State v. Callahan

Citations

  • 109 La. 946
  • 33 So. 931
  • 1903 La. LEXIS 454

Syllabus

<p>STATUTES — REPUGNANCY—REPEAL BY IMPLICATION-INTOXICATING LIQUORS — SALE WITHOUT LICENSE.</p> <p>1. Section 910 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by Act No. 83 of 1886, is repealed by implication by Act No. 66 of 1902.</p> <p>2. The element of the punishment laid down in the amending Act No. 83 of 1886 is changed by Act No. 66 of 1902, so that under the last statute there is possibility of imprisonment, primarily, in passing sentence. The last statute reads, “or shall suffer fine and imprisonment as the court may deem proper.”</p> <p>3. Repugnancy between two statutes may arise, and a consequent repeal by implication, ’ although the penalty imposed falls under the limits of the law laid down in each statute. Even though a penalty is only possible, and not necessary, the law is ex post facto. Commonwealth v. McDonough, 13 Allen, 581.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding ex post facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the range of punishment, even though defendant was sentenced within the range established by the prior law
  • finding ex post facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the range of punishment, even though defendant was sen- tenced within the range established by the prior law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Breaux

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

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.