# Cummings v. Missouri

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 14, 1867 · 71 U.S. 277

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416723

## Case

- **Full name:** Cummings v. the State of Missouri
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 14, 1867
- **Citations:** 71 U.S. 277; 4 Wall. 277; 18 L. Ed. 356; 1866 U.S. LEXIS 885
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Justice
- **Judges:** Field, Messrs, Swayne, Davis, Miller
- **Cited by:** 660 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416723

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding parts of Missouri Constitution violative of ex post facto clause because “as the State, had she attempted the course supposed, would have failed, it must follow that any other mode producing the same result must equally fail.”
- noting that, although "bills [of attainder] are generally directed against individuals by name,” they "may also be directed against a whole class,” as ”[t]he bill against the Earl of Kildare and others, passed in the reign of Henry VIII," which "enacted that ’all such persons …
- noting that “[i]t is evident from the nature of the pursuits and professions of the parties . . . that many of the acts, from the taint of which they must purge themselves, have no possible relation to their fitness for those pursuits and professions” and that the oath require…
- noting that “[i]t is evident from the nature of the pursuits and professions of the parties ... that many of the acts, from the taint of which they must purge themselves, have no possible relation to their fitness for those pursuits and professions” and that the oath requireme…
- noting that bills of attainder "are gen- erally directed against individuals by name," and that "[b] ills of this sort. .. have been most usually passed in England in times of rebellion, or gross subservency to the crown, or of violent political excitements; periods, in which …

## Opinion text

The CHIEF JUSTICE,
and Messrs. Justices SWAYNE, DAVIS, and MILLER
dissented. In behalf of this portion of the court, a dissenting opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Miller. This opinion applied equally or more to the case of Ex parte Garland (the case next following), which involved principles of a character similar to those discussed in this case. The dissenting opinion is, therefore, published after the opinion of the court in that case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416723. Public record. Not legal advice.