Legal Opinion
Avignone v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided May 10, 1926No. 295PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
That a libel of information lies in such a ease as this we do not doubt. The procedure by search warrant prescribed by section 25, tit. 2 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%m) is not exclusive as a method of forfeiture. It is true that U. S. v. Franzione, 52 App. D. C. 307, 286 F. 769, so holds, and that we avoided the point in U. S. v. Specified Intoxicating liquors, 7 F.(2d) 835; but the implication of Dumbra v. U. S., 268 U. S. 435, 45 S. Ct. 546, 69 L. Ed. 1032, corroborates what seems to us the almost inevitable conclusion. U. S. v. Franzione, supra,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Dumbra v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Rouda v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- United States v. 422 Casks of WineSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- United States v. Specified Quantities of Intoxicating LiquorsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Strong v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1931
- Quandt Brewing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Ng Ka Py CasesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- The SquantoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- United States v. 3,599 Bags of LiquorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.