From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonough v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 11, 1953
202 F.2d 424 (6th Cir. 1953)

Opinion

No. 11676.

February 11, 1953.

Charles E. Lester, Jr., Newport, Ky., Marion W. Moore and Stanley Chrisman, Covington, Ky., for appellants.

Claude P. Stephens and Kit C. Elswick, Lexington, Ky., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.


The above cause coming on to be heard on the transcript of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court, and it appearing that the district court found that the property in question, which was seized by the agents of the United States, was not contraband, and that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 2465, it should be returned forthwith to the respective owners; and it further appearing that the district court ordered the United States Marshal to return forthwith the said property to the respective owners by releasing it at its present location, which is approximately 100 miles from the places where it was seized, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be amended to provide that the United States Marshal return the property in question to the respective owners at the places where it was seized; and that the cause be remanded to the district court for entry of such amended judgment.


Summaries of

McDonough v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 11, 1953
202 F.2d 424 (6th Cir. 1953)
Case details for

McDonough v. United States

Case Details

Full title:McDONOUGH et al. v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Feb 11, 1953

Citations

202 F.2d 424 (6th Cir. 1953)

Citing Cases

United States v. One 1969 Plymouth Two-Door Hrdtop

It might also be noted that the claimant is entitled to the return of his car at the place where it was…

Munoz Rivera v. Walgreens Co.

The Court notes that where a plaintiff has no direct evidence of discrimination, such plaintiff must prove…