U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1958

United States v. Stanley Addison, of One 1957 Cadillac Convertible, Motor No. 5762- 098831, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 7, 1958 · Rives, Tuttle, Jones

260 F.2d 908; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3177 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

O. B. Cline, Jr., James L. Guilmartin, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of Florida, David C. Clark, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellant., Dean Boggs, Jacksonville, Fla., Murray Goodman, Miami Beach, Fla., Boggs, Blalock & Holbrook, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Forfeiture of 1969 Piper Navajo, Model PA-31-310, S/N-31-395 U.S. Registration N-1717G (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
United States v. One Clipper Bow Ketch Nisku, Ralph G. Washington, Claimant-Appellant (1st Cir. 1977)
United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, VIN B21AE3X095937, Bearing 1973 Michigan License 4037 EU (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1976)
United States v. One 1971 Porsche Coupe Automobile, Vehicle Identification Number 9111100355 (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1973)
State v. One 1967 Ford Mustang (Md. 1972)
United States v. Audrey Bride, , United States of America v. Madeline Defalco (9th Cir. 1962)

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is in all respects controlled by our decision in United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 931. The facts in that case, as in this, present in its starkest outline the rigidity and admitted severity of the provisions of 49 U.S.C.A. § 782, requiring forfeiture of an automobile, not a common carrier, in which a passenger, without the knowledge of the owner or lienor, is committing or has committed a crime prohibited by 49 U.S.C.A. § 781 (relating to narcotics crimes).

The language of the statute, however, is plain, and neither the District Court nor this Court is allowed any discretion in its application.

The judgment is reversed.

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