State v. Shaw
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 N.E. 875 (1902)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
Henry Shaw and others (defendants) were indicted for grand larceny for stealing fish contained in two nets. The trial court directed a verdict of not guilty because the fish were not confined so as to make escape absolutely impossible, and therefore were wild animals at large. Accordingly, stealing them could not be larceny. The state appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.