Charles Wilkes, Plaintiff In Error v. Samuel Dinsman

Decision Date01 January 1849
CitationCharles Wilkes, Plaintiff In Error v. Samuel Dinsman, 48 U.S. 89, 7 How. 89, 12 L.Ed. 618 (1849)
PartiesCHARLES WILKES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SAMUEL DINSMAN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
76 cases
  • Connelly v. State of California
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1970
    ...v. Stockes, 3 How. 87, 44 U.S. 87, 11 L.Ed. 506, 833; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646, and Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 48 U.S. 89, 12 L.Ed. 618.In 2 Harper & James, Torts, section 29.10, subdivisions (2), (3), page 1638, the doctrine of abstention is shown to ge......
  • Butz v. Economou
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1978
    ..."[I]t is not enough to show he committed an error of judgment, but it must have been a malicious and wilful error." Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 131, 12 L.Ed. 618 (1849). In Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (1896), on which the Government relies, the principal is......
  • Dalehite v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1953
    ...v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579. 16. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780 (Postmaster General); Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 12 L.Ed. 618 (officer of Marine Corps); Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch 339, 3 L.Ed. 752 (Deputy Collector of Customs); Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 12 ......
  • U.S. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 30, 1976
    ...and thus it is arguable that this plea of guilty ended the threat of further penalty for the robbery. See Wilkes v. Dinsman, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 89, 123, 12 L.Ed. 618 (1849); United States v. Bayer, 156 F.2d 964, 970 (2d Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Targeting, the Law of War, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 51 No. 3, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...When properly applied, it protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."). (52.) Wilkes v. Dinsman, 48 U.S. 89, 123 (1849). (53.) MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES, R.C.M. 916(c), pt. IV, [paragraph][paragraph] 23c(3)(b), 34c(3) (2016) [hereinafter......
1 provisions
  • 10 U.S.C. § 8120 Expiration: Rights of Member
    • United States
    • US statutes U.S. Code 2023 Edition Title 10. Armed Forces Subtitle C. Navy and Marine Corps Part II. Personnel Chapter 813. Enlistments
    • January 1, 2023
    ...original section. The words "in foreign waters" are inserted to conform to the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89 (1849). The words "on service" are omitted, as they have no current ascertainable meaning. The words "by Government or other transportation" are......