Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 F.2d 72

Docket No. 216.

United States v. Brown

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 18, 1932.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1932-01-18

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1959

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * not enough was done under the special appearance for Lieberman to amount to submission to the jurisdiction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Nolan v. Jensen

Relies on United States v. Collins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1932-01-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*73M. Michael Edelstein, of Now York City, for appellants David Brown and Abe Lieberman, appearing specially.

¶2Geoige 7. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Earle N. Bishopp, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Leonard J. Obevmeier, Jr., Asst. TJ. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.

¶3Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Brown and Lieberman were the owner's of the business; that a common nuisance was permitted by the owners to exist at the premises in violation of the Prohibition Act (27 USCA); but not enough was done under the special appearance for Lieberman to amount to submission to the jurisdiction. United States v. Collins and Lawlor (C. C. A.) 55 F.(2d) 70.

¶6Decree modified to vacate the personal injunction against Lieberman and in all other respects affirmed.

/55/f2d/72 · .json · Public domain