This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
A fact from United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
An Indian agent reported him to the authorities – not found in any citation (the inline cite is to the statute)
As the treaty also superseded state law, the Court vacated the original judgement coram nobis and remitted the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. – correct me if I'm wrong – coram nobis is a very specific legal term, and nowhere in the Court's opinion did it appear. Where was that term sourced from?
Based on this direction, the District Court overrode its original judgement and found that the seizure was legal. – this statement cites to the Supreme Court's opinion, which didn't (and couldn't, since it was issued before the District Court would have "overrode its original judgement") say anything about what the District Court "did", only what it should do
Lariviere was also sentenced to two years imprisonment as a result. – I'm highly doubtful that this happened. This statement cites to [1], which notes: "Congress declares that anyone who gives unlicensed whiskey to “Indian country” is going to prison for 2 years." The statute in question (Act of March 15, 1864, 13 Stat. 29, as the Supreme Court opinion cites) provides that violators "shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years" (emphasis added). I can find no reliable source that supports that Lariviere was sentenced to two years, or even that Lariviere was criminally convicted; this was a civil forfeiture case.
