Legal Opinion
United States v. Brooklier
District Court, C.D. California
Decided June 13, 1978No. CR 78-180-HPPublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT IV OF THE INDICTMENT FILED APRIL 20, 1978
PREGERSON, District Judge.
Defendants Dominick Brooklier and Samuel Sciortino move for dismissal of Count IV of the indictment. Their motions raise three related but distinct arguments. Defendants argue that (1) an actual or potential effect on commerce is a necessary element of an attempted violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Count IV of the indictment is defective because it does not allege facts showing such an effect; (2) they cannot be found guilty of an attempted…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Perez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Maryland v. WirtzSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. Philip Berrigan, in No. 72-1938, and Elizabeth McAlister Appeal of Elizabeth McAlister InCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- United States v. CulbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. Martin Molina Oviedo, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- United States of America, in No. 81-1020 v. Jannotti, Harry P. United States of America, in No. 81-1021 v. Schwartz, George XCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- United States v. John Bagnariol, United States of America v. Gordon L. Walgren, United States of America v. Patrick GallagherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Dominic Phillip Brooklier, Samuel Orlando Sciortino, Louis Tom Dragna, Michael Rizzitello, and Jack LociceroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. ZemekCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. WilsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.