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.
Torts · MBE-tested
Sam VECCHIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
61 F.2d 1044·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
Sam VECCHIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 9361, 9362.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 1932.
William E. Lovely, of Omaha, Neb. (Lovely & Lovely, of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for- appellant.
Charles E. Saudall, U. S. Atty., and Am-brose C. Epperson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Omaha, Neb., Robert Van Pelt, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lincoln, Neb., and Lawrence I. Shaw and Edson Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Omaha, Neb.
Before KENYON, GARDNER, and SANBORN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
There are two appeals, one from the conviction of appellant on count 1 of an information charging him with illegal possession of intoxicating liquor and the other from conviction on four counts of an indictment charging appellant with illegal sales of intoxicating liquors and the maintenance of a common nuisance. The two cases were consolidated for trial and tried April 30, 1931. A number of questions are raised in appellant’s brief, all of which have been examined and all of which are without merit. Appellant’s guilt is apparent from the record, and no prejudicial error was committed in the trial. The appeals are frivolous and evidently taken merely for delay. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed, and it is directed that mandates issue at once.
Affirmed.