Wolkin v. Gibney
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the CourtBondy, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Notwithstanding Oregon v. Wood (D. C.) 268 F. 975, Morse v. Higgins (D. C.) 273 F. 832, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bogan (D. C.) 285 F. 668, United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (D. C.) 293 F. 931, to the contrary, the motion is granted. The federal Prohibition Act is not a Revenue Act. See Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557, 42 S. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed. 1061. Prohibition officers and agents are not within the provisions of section 33 of the Judicial Code. In the court’s opinion the provision of section 28 of the National Prohibition Act that all…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lipke v. LedererSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Smith v. GilliamDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1922
- Oregon v. WoodDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1920
- Mouse v. HigginsDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1921
- Massachusetts v. BoganDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Texas v. HeatonDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1932