U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1953

Medlin v. United States. (Two Cases). House v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 12, 1953 · Edgerton, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Washington

207 F.2d 33 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. E. Riley Casey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Arthur D. Schaffer and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Arthur v. United States (D.C. 1992)
Perry v. United States (D.C. 2011)
United States v. Paul Alphonso Payne, United States of America v. Jeremiah Chambers (4th Cir. 1994)
United States v. Tony Jerome Murphy (4th Cir. 1994)
United States v. Sheldon Schoenborn (7th Cir. 1993)
Moore v. United States (D.C. 1991)
State, in Interest of Jr (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
State ex rel. J. R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
Freeman v. United States (D.C. 1978)
Grass v. People (Colo. 1970)
Robert L. Logan v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969)
United States v. Barber (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1969)
James W. Parker v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
State v. Lavallee (N.H. 1963)
State v. Bradley (Iowa 1962)
United States v. Anderson (District Court, D. Maryland 1961)
United States v. Hamilton (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)

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.

The appellants were indicted and convicted of assault “with a dangerous weapon, that is, shoes” on their feet. There was substantial evidence that each appellant kicked the complaining witness. He was seriously injured.

Appellants contend that shoes on feet are not dangerous weapons. We think it clear that they are, at least when they inflict serious injuries. Cf. Tatum v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 393, 110 F. 2d 555. Appellants’ other contentions do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

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