Legal Opinion
United States v. Duignan
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 2, 1925No. 163PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We shall not discuss the evidence tending to show that liquor was sold in Duignan’s place in such wise as to create a nuisance within the statute; the trial court’s .ruling was quite within our decisions in Wiggins v. United States, 272 F. 41, and United States v. Reisenweber, 288 F. 520.
Exactly what appellant meant by his motion for a jury trial is not clear from the record. If his thought was to try before a jury the issue of nuisance, the motion had no foundation in law.. The applicable sections of the National Prohibition Law have a long legal history.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- United States v. ReisenweberCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- United States v. BoyntonDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1924
- Wiggins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Grossman v. United States ex rel. BrundageCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. GaffneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- United States v. LockhartDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1929
- Kling v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1925
- United States v. SmailCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- United States v. DoeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.