MASSEY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Massey was convicted in 1932 of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1933, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case after determining that no final judgment had been entered against him before ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Prohibition. The Court held that the indictment against Massey should be dismissed based on the controlling precedent of United States v. Chambers.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
It appeared, on rehearing, that the petitioner and others were indicted on March 4, 1932, in the. District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Indiana for conspiring to violate .the National Prohibition Act; that the petitioner was found guilty by a jury on May 20, 1932, and, with others, was sentenced to fine and imprisonment by a judgment entered in that court on June 3, 1932; that, on appeal, the judgment, as to the petitioner, was affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on August 7,1933, and that a petition for rehearing duly filed by him in that court was denied on October 10,1933. It fúrther appeared that on October 11, 1933, the Circuit Court of Appeals, upon consideration of a motion by the petitioner for a stay of mandate pending a petition to this Court for writ of certiorari, stayed its mandate until its further order, and ordered that the petitioner proceed with diligence and promptly file the petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. Petition for writ of certiorari was filed in this Court on January 6, 1934 and within the time provided by law.
The Solicitor General appeared on behalf of the Government upon the rehearing and stated his view to be that this case is controlled by the decision in United States v. Chambers, ante, p. 217, and. that the judgment of the court below should be reversed.
The Court is of the opinion that it appears from the record that no final judgment was rendered herein against the petitioner prior to the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, as entered in the cause of this petitioner, is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with direction to vacate that part of its judgment which sentences this petitioner,- and to dismiss the indictment as to him. United States v. Chambers, ante, p. 217.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
United States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1971)…place received no benefit from the new rule; but repeal of a statute abated pending prosecutions and required reversal of convictions still on appeal when the law was changed. United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217 (1934); Massey v. United States, 291 U. S. 608 (1934); United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88 (1871); Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281 (1809); In re Kline, 70 [*736] Ohio St. 25, 70 N. E. 511 (1904); State v. Addington, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 516 (1831); Ex parte Andres, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 93, 237 S. W.…
-
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1964)…ion of the common-law rule which it was designed to do away with, unless judge-made rules of construction have some sort of superiority over congressionally enacted statutes.3 In United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217, and Massey v. United States, 291 U. S. 608, the only cases which the Court cites as authority for disregarding the federal saving statute, this Court made clear that the saving statute was not involved in any way since the abatement there was by force of the Twenty-first Amendment, and of co…1 / 2
-
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1964)…nited States, 5 Cranch 281, 283; Maryland v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 3 How. 534, 552; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 95; United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398, 401; United States v. Chambers, 291 U. S. 217, 222-223; Massey v. United States, 291 U. S. 608. Thus the statewide public accommodations law enacted in 1964, see note 1, supra, is entitled “An Act to repeal and re-enact, with amendments . . . ,” the 1963 Act, and provides expressly at several points that certain portions of the 1963 Act — no…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence