Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Kenneth D. Wood and James K. Hughes, Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellant. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the case was submitted, Thomas A. Flannery, William R. Glendon, William J. Peck and Samuel J. L'Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellee. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time record was filed, and Mr. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time brief was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • Charles Fahy
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Kenneth D. Wood and James K. Hughes, Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellant. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the case was submitted, Thomas A. Flannery, William R. Glendon, William J. Peck and Samuel J. L'Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellee. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time record was filed, and Mr. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time brief was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.
Judges
  • Henry White Edgerton
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • Charles Fahy
See more information ...
Smart Summary

JAMES v. UNITED STATES.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of entering a store with intent to steal, and of maliciously destroying property. His principle contentions are (1) that the officers who arrested him without a warrant had no probable cause to believe he had committed a felony, and therefore the evidence taken from him was illegally seized and should have been suppressed; and (2) the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to convict. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

JAMES v. UNITED STATES
(May 21, 1953)