Irven Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788 (5th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Irven Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788 (5th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Iberia Hampton v. Edward v. Hanrahan, United States of America Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. Jeffrey H. Haas, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant. United States of America Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. G. Flint Taylor, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant (ca7, 1979-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iberia Hampton v. Edward v. Hanrahan, United States of America Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. Jeffrey H. Haas, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant. United States of America Ex Rel. Honorable Joseph Sam Perry v. G. Flint Taylor, Attorney at Law, Contemnor-Appellant
7th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Co., 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967). 112 Varelli, supra, 407 F.2d at 746 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hampton v. Hanrahan
7th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Co., 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Abraham (2×)
7th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Varelli
7th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964).; United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Varelli, Roy Nielsen and Emil Crovedi, United States of America v. Max Heckmyer, United States of America v. Morris Saletko, United States of America v. Kenneth Bratko and Joseph Rossi, United States of America v. John Anthony Borsellino, United States of America v. Thomas Daniel Bambulas and Albert Cardenas, United States of America v. Anthony Legato, Frank Gallo, and Ernest Infelice
7th Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
United States v. Crosby, 294 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1961); Green v. United States, 332 F.2d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. American Honda Motor Company, 273 F.Supp. 810 (N.D.Ill.1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Irven GREEN, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20919_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 15, 1964.
332 F.2d 788
Zach H. Douglas, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant., ,Samuel S. Jacobson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Middle District of Florida, for appellee.
Tuttle, Brown, Brewster.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence in this moonshine conspiracy case are affirmed. The contention that no act of the appellant was proved within the statutory period of six years is not controlling since there was ample evidence of appellant’s connection with the conspiracy less than a month before the critical date of February 1, 1957, and there was no evidence to show that his connection with it had ended prior to the occasion of the overt acts which occurred within the statutory period. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489.

There is no merit in the contention while charged with participation in a single conspiracy dealing with separate stills, the proof showed two separate conspiracies. There were several distinct threads running through the actions of the parties m connection with all of the stills and this was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the question whether there wag sin le conspiracy embracing all four stills.

The judgment is affirmed,