United States v. Lane Motor Co.
Cases that cite this one
47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, Motor No. 52lp22535h (Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile, Intervenor) (5th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. One 1972 Datsun, Vehicle Identification No. LB1100355950 (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1974)
- Com. v. J. Irland Smith and Wesson 9MM Semi-Automatic Pistol, Serial PDW0493 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)
- Dennis Sell and Edward Konder v. Robert F. Parratt, Warden, Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex (8th Cir. 1977)
- The First National Bank of Atlanta v. United States (1st Cir. 1957)
- United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan, Serial No. 6l47s4q407966 (2d Cir. 1977)
- No. 7710 (4th Cir. 1958)
- United States v. One 1957 Ford 2-Door Sedan (4th Cir. 1958)
- United States v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, of One 1954 Chevrolet Pick-Up Truck, Motor No. 0004727f54x (5th Cir. 1956)
- United States v. One 1979 Lincoln Continental Vin: 9Y89S613025 (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1983)
- United States v. One 1962 Ford 2-Door Sedan (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1964)
- Miner Electric, Inc. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation (United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern 2006)
- Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 (Minn. 2002)
- Interstate Cigar Co. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1994)
- People Ex Rel. Spencer v. One 1978 Pontiac Automobile (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)
- United States v. Brant (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1988)
- United States v. One 1978 Cadillac Sedan De Ville, New York License Plate No. 533 JPY (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- Vasile v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1972)
- King v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1968)
- United States v. One 1966 Ford LTD 4-Door Sedan (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1967)
- One 1961 Lincoln Continental Sedan v. United States (8th Cir. 1966)
- United States v. One 1964 Pontiac Bonneville 2-Door Sedan (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1965)
- United States v. One 1964 Chevrolet Impala Automobile (District Court, D. South Carolina 1965)
- United States v. One 1959 Pontiac Tudor Sedan Motor No. B271200, Serial No. 859a5856, Eddie Lane (5th Cir. 1962)
- No. 19262 (5th 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
In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and forfeiture of property “intended for use in violating” the alcohol tax laws, as well as property “which has been so used.” The respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the forfeitures.
The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked at a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 199 F. 2d 495.
*631 The Government has petitioned for a writ of certiorari showing that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. One 1948 Plymouth Sedan, 198 F. 2d 399 (1952), held in accord with the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has taken a contrary view, United States v. One 1950 Ford Half-Ton Pickup Automobile Truck, 195 F. 2d 857 (1952). Certio-rari is granted in order to resolve this conflict.
We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not used in violating the revenue laws.
Certiorari granted, and the judgment affirmed. ..
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.