Wolkin v. Gibney

S.D. New York

Wolkin v. Gibney

3 F.2d 960, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 909

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 19, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 F.2d 960 (Wolkin v. Gibney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolkin v. Gibney, 3 F.2d 960, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BONDY, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Notwithstanding Oregon v. Wood (D. C.) 268 F. 975, Morse v. Higgins (D. C.) 273 F. 832, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bogan (D. C.) 285 F. 668, United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (D. C.) 293 F. 931, to the contrary, the motion is granted. The federal Prohibition Act is not a Revenue Act. See Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557, 42 S. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed. 1061. Prohibition officers and agents are not within the provisions of section 33 of the Judicial Code. In the court’s opinion the provision of section 28 of the National Prohibition Act that all officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have the protection in the énforeement of the act, which is conferred by law for the enforcement of existing laws relating to the sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquor under the laws does not give to such officers or agents the right to removal. See Smith v. Gillian (D. C.) 282 F. 628.

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

BONDY, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Notwithstanding Oregon v. Wood (D. C.) 268 F. 975, Morse v. Higgins (D. C.) 273 F. 832, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bogan (D. C.) 285 F. 668, United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (D. C.) 293 F. 931, to the contrary, the motion is granted. The federal Prohibition Act is not a Revenue Act. See Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U. S. 557, 42 S. Ct. 549, 66 L. Ed. 1061. Prohibition officers and agents are not within the provisions of section 33 of the Judicial Code. In the court’s opinion the provision of section 28 of the National Prohibition Act that all officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have the protection in the énforeement of the act, which is conferred by law for the enforcement of existing laws relating to the sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquor under the laws does not give to such officers or agents the right to removal. See Smith v. Gillian (D. C.) 282 F. 628.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F.2d 960, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolkin-v-gibney-nysd-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack