UNITED STATES
v.
LANE MOTOR CO.
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.
The Government sought forfeiture of an automobile and truck under federal tax law provisions allowing seizure of property used in violating alcohol tax laws, but the vehicles had been used only for commuting to an illegal distillery rather than for transporting materials or operating the distillery itself. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions rejecting forfeiture, holding that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not used in violation of the revenue laws and therefore cannot be forfeited.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and forfeiture of property “intended for use in violating” the alcohol tax laws, as well as property “which has been so used.” The respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the forfeitures.
The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked at a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 199 F. 2d 495. The Government has petitioned for a writ of certiorari showing that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. One 1948 Plymouth Sedan, 198 F. 2d 399 (1952), held in accord with the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has taken a contrary view, United States v. One 1950 Ford Half-Ton Pickup Automobile Truck, 195 F. 2d 857 (1952). Certio-rari is granted in order to resolve this conflict.
We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not used in violating the revenue laws.
Certiorari granted, and the judgment affirmed. ..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Will Parks Clay v. United States, 239 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1956)…forged, altered, counterfeit coins or securities of the United States or foreign governments and paraphernalia for counterfeiting. Whether driving an automobile in some phase of the Numbers lottery business, cf. United States v. Lane Motor Company, 344 U.S. 630, 73 S. Ct. 459, 97 L.Ed. 622; United States y. One 1951 Cadillac, D.C.E.D.Mo., 125 F.Supp. 661, brings the vehicle under 26 U.S.C.A. § 3116 (1954 Code may be broader, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7302) which provides, “It shall be unlawful to have or possess any l…
-
United States v. ONE 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, 548 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1977)…rued as to limit its application to the three categories set forth in Datsun. The Datsun court, and Judge Weinfeld here, depend upon Simpson v. United States, 272 F. 2d 229 (9th Cir. 1959), which in turn relied upon United States v. Lane Motor Co., 344 U.S. 630, 73 S.Ct. 459, 97 L.Ed. 622 (1953), for the proposition that the mere fact that a car is used by a law violator for his personal convenience in transporting him to the site of the illicit operation does not establish a basis for forfeiture. Neither…
-
United States v. ONE 1956 Ford Tudor Sedan (Victoria) Motor No. M6NV-112513 (Steve Kaluk, Jr., 253 F.2d 725 (4th Cir. 1958)…or the truck. They were concerned, he said, about the mechanical condition of the truck, and DeHart went along on the journey to render what assistance might be appropriate in the event of a mechanical breakdown. In United States v. Lane Motor Co., 344 U.S. 630, 73 S.Ct. 459, 97 L.Ed. 622, it was settled that an automobile used by an illegal distiller solely to commute from his home to a point within walking distance of the distillery “is not used in violating the revenue laws” within the meaning of compar…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. ONE 1950 Ford Half-Ton Pickup Auto. Truck, 195 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1952)
- United States v. ONE 1948 Plymouth Sedan, 198 F.2d 399 (3d Cir. 1952)
- United States v. Lane Motor Co. (two cases), 199 F.2d 495 (10th Cir. 1952)