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.
James E. WATERS and James E. Waters Securities Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1934 — 69 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
Securities
James E. WATERS and James E. Waters Securities Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
69 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
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
James E. WATERS and James E. Waters Securities Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7294.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1934.
John J. Sullivan and A. A. Seijas, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.
Anthony Savage, U. S. Atty., and Tom De Wolfe, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and upon authority of Green v. United States, 67 F. (2d) 846, decided by this court on December 14, 1933, and United States v. Claude Chambers et al., 290 U. S. -, 54 S. Ct. 434, 78 L. Ed. -, ordered judgment of District Court reversed, and cause remanded to District Court, with directions to return the forfeited automobile to the appellants.