Legal Opinion
United States v. Di Santo
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided October 19, 1935No. 15185PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WEST, District Judge.
Defendant was indicted for violation of the Joint Resolution‘adopted June'18, 1934, 48 Stat. 1020, section 275, tit. 26 U.S.C. (26 U.S.C.A. § 1162a). He demurred on the ground that the resolution violates article 1 and the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and usurps the powers of the state to regulate intrastate commerce. Decision on the demurrer was reserved, jury waived, and the case tried to the court.
It seems clear that neither the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendments, nor the Commerce Clause (article 1, § 8, cl. 3) are involved, and Brushaber v. R. R. Co., *255240…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- United States v. GrimaudSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Tyson & Brother v. BantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Huard-Steinheiser, Inc. v. George A. Henry, Supervisor in Charge, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax UnitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- United States v. TishmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1938
- United States v. DanoDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1936
- Huard-Steinheiser, Inc. v. George A. Henry, Supervisor in Charge, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax UnitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960