United States v. Rykowski
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Separate prosecutions against one Rykowski, one Kozman, and one Keydoszius for illicit operation of stills. On motions by Rykowski and Kozman for return of property seized, and by Keydoszius for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
SATER, District Judge.
The affidavit on which a warrant was obtained on March 3 to search the premises of Rykowski is lost, but the warrant recites that the affiant has reason to believe and does believe that a fraud upon the revenue of the United States is being committed upon .and by the use of certain premises for illicit making, keeping and storing of distilled spirits containing more than one-half of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume “and distilling apparatus,” “being the premises of 2311 E. 1st, Dayton, O., John Doe.” Another affidavit was issued on April 6, whose contents differ from…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- United States v. BorkowskiDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1920
- Veeder v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1918
- Ripper v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- In Re FriedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Jenkins v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
- Giles v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1922
- Raymond Ralph Roberts v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
- United States v. KaplanDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1923
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.