Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Samuels v. McCurdy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Samuels v. McCurdy" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR
(December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

1925 United States Supreme Court case
Samuels v. McCurdy
Argued January 22, 1925
Decided March 2, 1925
Full case nameSamuels v. McCurdy, Sheriff ofDeKalb County, Georgia
Citations267U.S.188 (more)
45 S. Ct. 264; 69L. Ed. 568; 1925U.S. LEXIS 364; 37A.L.R. 1378
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
MajorityTaft, joined by Holmes, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Sutherland, Sanford
DissentButler
Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 (1925), was aUnited States Supreme Court case regarding the application ofex post facto in the case where an object was legally purchased and possessed, but was then later banned by statute.

Background

[edit]

In 1917, Georgia'sprohibition law became effective prior to federal prohibition with theEighteenth Amendment. Sig Samuels legally purchased alcohol for personal use prior to the ban which theDeKalb County Sheriff seized with a valid search warrant after the law became effective.[1] Samuels sued for a return of his property for violating hisdue process. He also claimed the law was being applied in anex post facto fashion because consumption per se was not forbidden by Georgia's law.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

The court found thatex post facto does not apply, because possession is an ongoing condition.

This law is not anex post facto law. It does not provide a punishment for a past offense. It does not fix a penalty for the owner for having become possessed of the liquor. The penalty it imposes is for continuing to possess the liquor after the enactment of the law.

— Chief Justice Taft, writing for the court

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S.188 (1925).

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
By country
By topic
People
Political parties
Related
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuels_v._McCurdy&oldid=1311344842"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp