U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1929

Coyle v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided September 3, 1929

34 F.2d 399; 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3248 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

J. Q. A. Harrod and Laynie W. Harrod, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in. error., Roy St. Lewis, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Herbert K. Hyde, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Turk v. United States (10th Cir. 1930)
Smith v. United States (10th Cir. 1930)
Flowers v. United States (10th Cir. 1930)
Hood v. United States (10th Cir. 1930)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the information, upon, the *400sole ground that it did not sufficiently identify the offense charged. The information in part alleged that the defendant, on January 22,1927, in Oklahoma county, in the Western district of the state of Oklahoma, did unlawfully sell and deliver to Orival Snook intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky. In the lower court, the attack on the information was by motion in arrest of judgment. The information alleged the name of the purchaser. This sufficiently identified and ear-marked the offense. Swafford v. United States (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 581; Davis v. United States (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 814; Jarl v. United States (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 891.

The appeal is frivolous, and the ease is affirmed, with direction that the mandate of this court be issued forthwith.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.