Legal Opinion
United States v. Haramic
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 30, 1954No. Cr. 14159PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARSH, District Judge.
On March 10, 1954, the defendant was indicted for an alleged violation of Sections 4047(e) (2) and 55(f) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and a motion for a bill of particulars. 1
In the motion to dismiss the defendant seeks to avail himself of the defense of the statute of limitations. No affidavits were filed. The defendant contends that since the indictment on its face shows that the period of limitations has expired, it should be quashed as fatally defectiye. This appears to be the Pennsylvania rule. Cf.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Commonwealth v. BartilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Capone v. AderholdCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
- Hughes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
- United States v. ParrinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. ZamoraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Manucy v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Florida · 1974
- Cane v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
- United States v. DierkerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1958
- United States v. Auto Rental Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.