Legal Opinion
The Patricia
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 6, 1933No. Nos. 211-213PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
The facts in all these suits were the same. Each vessel was licensed for coastwise trade, and was seized by the Coast Guard in navigable waters of the United States, laden with a cargo of liquors, the labels on which proved it to have been imported. United States v. American Motor Boat K-1231, 54 F.(2d) 502, 504 (C. C. A. 2). The crews were arrested at the same time and later indicted for violations of section 26 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), and pleaded guilty. In two of the suits, before ’the indictments had been found, or the prosecution had otherwise declared…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Richbourg Motor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- United States v. the Ruth MildredSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- United States v. American Motor Boat K—1231Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- The SebastopolCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- The FeliciaDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1936