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.
J. C. OWENS v. UNITED STATES, 1925 — 8 F.2d 435 · caselaw · US
General
J. C. OWENS v. UNITED STATES
8 F.2d 435·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1925
Before HUNT, RUDKIN, and McCAMANT, 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
J. C. OWENS v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit.
November 2, 1925.)
No. 4499.
In Error to 'the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona; F. C. Jacobs, Judge.
Thomas J. Croaff and Joseph.E. Morrison, both of Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff in error.
John B. Wright, U. S. Atty., of Tucson, Ariz., and Geo. T. Wilson and George R. Hill, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Phoenix, Ariz.
Before HUNT, RUDKIN, and McCAMANT, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari denied 4G S. Ct. 203, TO h. Ed. —.
[MAJORITY — HUNT, Circuit Judge.]
HUNT, Circuit Judge.
Conviction under an indictment for sale of intoxicating liquor to Indians under charge of an Indian agent, and wards of the Government of the United States.
The questions presented axe the same as are decided in Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 433, and upon the authority of that ease the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.