Legal Opinion
United States v. One 1941 Pontiac Sedan
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 14, 1948PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEIBELL, District Judge.
The above actions to forfeit two automobiles, alleged to have been used by John G. Ardito in facilitating the sale of contraband (narcotic drugs) were by agreement consolidated for trial. The main facts in relation to each action have been set forth separately in findings of fact which are being filed together with this memorandum. Ardito was a seller of narcotics and he was convicted in this Court, on a plea of guilty of having made- an illegal sale of narcotics consummated April 30, 1946.
On November 29, 1946 the government filed the libels against the two automobiles…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Platt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
- United States v. Pacific Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, Serial No. 6l47s4q407966Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- United States v. One 1972 Datsun, Vehicle Identification No. LB1100355950District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1974
- United States v. Anthony La VecchiaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- United States v. One 1976 Lincoln Mark IV, Serial 6Y89A876578 Michigan License TWP 951District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Ben Ali v. ToweNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.