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.
BERNSTEIN v. DORAN, United States Prohibition Commissioner, et al., 1929 — 33 F.2d 897 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
BERNSTEIN v. DORAN, United States Prohibition Commissioner, et al.
33 F.2d 897·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
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
BERNSTEIN v. DORAN, United States Prohibition Commissioner, et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 16, 1929.
No. 4082.
Abraham Wemick, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Philip Forman, U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J. (by John Grimshaw, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Paterson, N. J.), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
After two hearings and an opportunity to the appellant to produce testimony, the Prohibition Commissioner refused to grant a permit to Lewis Bernstein. Thereupon a bill was filed in the court below to reverse his order. We feel the ease presented questions touching the applicant’s- experience in the business proposed, alleged false statements on his part concerning his residence and experience, the employment of a chemist who had been connected with a company that had its permit revoked, conflicting statements concerning the money invested in the business and the source from which it was obtained, and the questionable character of customers with whom applicant stated he meant to deal. These were all questions within the sphere of proper inquiry on the part of the appellee. While the testimony was pro and con, there was testimony from which he could make the order he did.
On hearing, the court below approved his action, holding that the facts testified to before the examiner bore out the conclusions reached. Finding no error in the action of the appellee or of the court below, the decree of the latter is affirmed.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge, sat in this case, but took no> part in its decision.