Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
George W. RICE et al., Defendants, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error, 1928 — 27 F.2d 129 · caselaw · US
General
George W. RICE et al., Defendants, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error
27 F.2d 129·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1928
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
George W. RICE et al., Defendants, Plaintiffs in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 4, 1928.
No. 2182.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James Arnold Lowell, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.]
JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.
The United States has filed a motion for rehearing since the announcement of our opinion in the above ease. 24 F.(2d) 479.
In Murby v. United States, 293 F. 849, where the proceedings were under and by virtue of a search warrant, this court held that “what would have happened, or have been found, if the officers had proceeded without process, is a matter of pure conjecture, in which we need not indulge," to whieh we adhere.
It will be noted, also, that in the present case search and seizure was not made as incidental to the arrest, but that the arrest was made following the search and seizure.
Petition is denied.