Legal Opinion
Young v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 2, 1921No. 3517PublishedCited by 21 opinions
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the First Division of the Northern District of California; Frank S. Dietrich, Judge. Albert Young and another were convicted of maintaining a public nuisance by keeping intoxicating liquor for sale, and the named defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error and one Walter De Kau were charged, by an information filed November 28, 1919, with violating title 1, § 3, of the act commonly known as the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 306). The charging part of the information • alleges :•
“That Walter De Kau and Albert Young, hereinafter called defendants, heretofore, to wit, on the 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1919, at San Francisco, in the Southern division of the Northern district of California, then and there being, did then and there, in violation of section 3 of the act of October…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- United States v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Weeks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
3Cited by21 opinions
- James Boyd Brown v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- United States v. ReisenweberCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Singer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
- People v. MehraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Stubbs v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.