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.
SHIELDS v. UNITED STATES, 1928 — 29 F.2d 204 · caselaw · US
General
SHIELDS v. UNITED STATES
29 F.2d 204·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1928
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
SHIELDS v. UNITED STATES.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
November 9, 1928.
No. 3959.
Max V. Schoonmaker and Aaron M. Jaffe, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and Joseph A. Richardson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on its opinion refusing to arrest judgment.
It is further ordered that the mandate go down in 15 days from this date, November 9, 1928.