Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Conn. 233

State v. Gorham

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 15, 1836

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1836-06-15

This was an information against Samuel Gorham, presented by the state’s attorney, to the superior court in Litch-field county, stating, “ That said Gorham, on the 10th of April, 1835, at an electors’ meeting, duly holden at New-Milford, for the purpose of choosing representatives to represent that town in the then next General Assembly of this state, and the officers of this state which by law might have been chosen at said meeting, did, then and there, at said meeting, at…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2001

8 state decisions

20183618401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court

¶1decided, on the authority of Crandall v. The State, 10 Conn. Rep. 339. 366. that the information was within the original jurisdiction of the superior court, and sufficient ; and therefore, overruled the motion in arrest.

¶2Motion in arrest overruled.

/11/conn/233 · .json · Public domain