Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Douglas
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 3, 1968PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCutter, J.
Douglas, Frank Celeste, Alexander Celeste, and Arthur J. O’Neill were indicted for various offences. Douglas and O’Neill were each charged with threats to extort. Alexander Celeste was charged with being an accessory before the fact to such threats. Frank Celeste and Alexander Celeste were each indicted for violation of G. L. c. 140, § 110, making it a crime for an unlicensed person to conduct a small loan business (see fn. 3). All four defendants were charged with conspiracy to extort. Frank Celeste was found not guilty on the conspiracy indictment, but the other three defendants were found…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Hoffa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Nardone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Lopez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Commonwealth v. DouganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Productora E Importadora De Papel v. FlemingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- Commonwealth v. ErringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. JarrettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.