Legal Opinion
United States v. Briddle
District Court, S.D. California
Decided December 27, 1962No. Cr. 30976-CDPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MATHES, District Judge.
The defendants stand indicted for “holding” or possessing gold bullion in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 95a; Executive Order No. 6260, as amended; and 31 U.S.C. § 442. The provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 442 deal only with civil penalties, and so are immaterial to the criminal charge.
Sections 95a(l) and (3) of Title 12 of the United States Code, insofar as here relevant, provide that:
“(1) During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, and under such rules…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Chastleton Corp. v. SinclairSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Murphy v. CadyDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1939
- Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1933
- United States v. Chabot. United States v. FliegelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Robert Sheldon Pike and Ryk Henry Brouwer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- United States v. LaneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1963