Blum v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Blum v. United States

196 F. 269, 116 C.C.A. 71, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1474

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 2, 1912

DocketNo. 1,778

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 F. 269 (Blum v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blum v. United States, 196 F. 269, 116 C.C.A. 71, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1474 (7th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment from which this writ of error is brought pronounces, upon a finding of guilty as charged in the indictment, that the plaintiff in error be imprisoned in a penitentiary for two years and pay a fine of $5,000 besides the costs, under an indictment charging in several counts various violations of the internal revenue statutes, with a plea of nolo contendere tendered as the only plea thereunder. The errors assigned are identical with those assigned in Tucker v. United States (No. 1,776) 196 Fed. 260, 115 C. C. A. —decided herewith, and no distinction from the indictment and record of proceedings there presented and considered appears in the present case, in so far as material for decision. So the opinion and ruling therein is applicable to this writ, and the judgment of the District Court is reversed, accordingly, and the cause is remanded, with direction either to accept or refuse acceptance of the nolo con-tendere plea as tendered, and proceed further in conformity with law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment from which this writ of error is brought pronounces, upon a finding of guilty as charged in the indictment, that the plaintiff in error be imprisoned in a penitentiary for two years and pay a fine of $5,000 besides the costs, under an indictment charging in several counts various violations of the internal revenue statutes, with a plea of nolo contendere tendered as the only plea thereunder. The errors assigned are identical with those assigned in Tucker v. United States (No. 1,776) 196 Fed. 260, 115 C. C. A. —decided herewith, and no distinction from the indictment and record of proceedings there presented and considered appears in the present case, in so far as material for decision. So the opinion and ruling therein is applicable to this writ, and the judgment of the District Court is reversed, accordingly, and the cause is remanded, with direction either to accept or refuse acceptance of the nolo con-tendere plea as tendered, and proceed further in conformity with law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 F. 269, 116 C.C.A. 71, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blum-v-united-states-ca7-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack