L. C. Atterberry, Jr. v. Harold O. Fortson, Leonard J. Hallman and J. D. Strickland
This text of 230 F.2d 604 (L. C. Atterberry, Jr. v. Harold O. Fortson, Leonard J. Hallman and J. D. Strickland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Alleging that a search and seizure violated his civil rights, plaintiff-appellant sought to enjoin the use, and compel the return, of property taken by law-enforcement officers of the City of Savannah.
The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the use in state courts of property allegedly unlawfully seized does not violate the due process clause. The district judge dismissed the bill, and plaintiff is here insisting that in doing so, he erred.
We think the law is settled to the contrary in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782; Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 74 S.Ct. 381, 98 L.Ed. 561; Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 72 *605 S.Ct. 118, 96 L.Ed. 138; and Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S.Ct. 292.
The judgment was right, and it is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
230 F.2d 604, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-c-atterberry-jr-v-harold-o-fortson-leonard-j-hallman-and-j-d-ca5-1956.