JAMES CUSMANO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Crawford v. United States (D.D.C. 1952)
  …5, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816. This is particularly true where no objection to the rebutting evidence is made. Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F. 2d 181, 185-186; Cusmano v. United States, 6 Cir., 1926, 13 F. 2d 451, certiorari dismissed, 273 U.S. 773, 47 S.Ct. 113, 71 L.Ed. 885; State v. Segar, 1921, 96 Conn. 428, 114 A. 389, 394; State v. Engsberg, 1920, 94 N.J.L. 464, 110 A. 918, 919. The defense having opened the door it was not closed to the prosecution. Garrison v. State, 1931, 163 Tenn. 10…
• United States v. Certain Malt (D. Minn. 1927)
  …ies therein relied upon, wherein Mr. Justice Story declared the law in such eases. Here the only right to seize was based on the formal warrant, to which the owner yielded, but the warrant was void. The government also relies on Potter v. Geraghty, 273 U. S. 773, 47 S. Ct. 235, 71 L. Ed.-. The meaning of, or reason for, that decision does not appear. It was disposed of “per stipulation of counsel.” What led to the agreement and stipulation is not disclosed. The case is not to be considered as the deliberate…
• United States v. Liquor (W.D. Pa. 1930)
  …en made by one duly authorized.” In Geraghty v. Potter, 5 F.(2d) 366, the District Court of Massachusetts ordered intoxicating liquor returned to the possessor or owner, which had been illegally seized. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, 273 U. S. 773, 47 S. Ct. 235, 71 L. Ed. 885, a memorandum opinion and order was made as follows: “Remanded to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, per stipulation of counsel, with directions to that court to vacate its judgm…