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.
STROGAN v. UNITED STATES (two cases), 1932 — 60 F.2d 483 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
STROGAN v. UNITED STATES (two cases)
60 F.2d 483·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1932
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
STROGAN v. UNITED STATES (two cases).
Nos. 4798, 4799.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Aug. 5, 1932.
F. M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.
Phillip Forman, U. S. Atty., and John W. Griggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Trenton, N. J., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
In these two eases against the same defendant we find no error. Accordingly, they are affirmed. In each case he was driving a truek load of unlabeled beer of unlawful alcoholic content. In the first case he was stopped by a state trooper for high speeding, and the trooper, on looking into his open truck, discovered the barrels.
In the second case the defendant drove a truck which was recognized as having been at a beer drop. He stopped at the eells.r entrance of a building which had the appearance of an old-time saloon and went around to its rear door. As he moved away he was whistled to to stop, and on inquiry admitted he had on board the twenty unlabeled barrels of beer found therein.
In neither case was there any coneert of action or understanding by the state and federal officers, and no unlawful search or seizure was shown.