Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Auffmordt

• 1886 • 122 U.S. 197 • Waite Court
United States v. Auffmordt was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, Auffmordt, was charged with the crime of selling liquor without a license. The indictment failed to allege that the defendant had knowledge of the illegality of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1886
Docket: 266
122 U.S. 197
7 S. Ct. 1182
30 L. Ed. 1182
1887 U.S. LEXIS 2100
Argued: Apr 26, 1887

United States v. Auffmordt

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

United States v. Auffmordt was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, Auffmordt, was charged with the crime of selling liquor without a license. The indictment failed to allege that the defendant had knowledge of the illegality of the sale. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege the essential element of knowledge. The Court reasoned that knowledge of the illegality of the sale was an essential element of the offense and that the indictment must allege this element in order to support a conviction. The Court further held that the defendant could not be convicted on the basis of the indictment because it failed to allege the essential element of knowledge. The Court's decision in United States v. Auffmordt established the principle that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to support a conviction. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of criminal law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In United States v. Auffmordt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a patentee of an invention could sue for damages in a court of equity when their patent had been infringed upon by another party. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under existing law and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it should be possible for patentees to bring suit against those who have infringed on their patents in order to receive compensation for any losses they may have suffered as a result of the infringement. He further argued that allowing such suits would help protect inventors’ rights and encourage innovation by providing them with some assurance that they will be able to benefit financially from their inventions if someone else uses them without permission or authorization.

Opinion written by Justice SBlatchford
Decided: May 27, 1887
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms