Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Campbell v. United States

Campbell v. United States, 151 F.2d 605 (6th Cir. 1945)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-10-12
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. This case came to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel; and it appearing that the appellant voluntarily consented to a search of his premises, and thus waived any claim that his constitutional rights were invaded, Waxman v. United States, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 775, certiorari denied, 273 U.S. 716, 47 S.Ct. 108, 71 L.Ed. 855. And no reversible error appearing in the record: It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed, for the reasons stated by the District Court in the colloquy on the motion to suppress testimony.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Campbell v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
CAMPBELL v. UNITED STATES,151 F.2d 605(6th Cir. 1945)
CAMPBELL v. UNITED STATES.
No. 10002.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 12, 1945.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee; George C. Taylor, Judge.

Proceeding by the United States of America against Theodore Campbell. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.
Hobart F. Atkins, of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant.

James B. Frazier, Jr., U.S. Atty., of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This case came to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel; and it appearing that the appellant voluntarily consented to a search of his premises, and thus waived any claim that his constitutional rights were invaded, Waxman v. United States, 9 Cir.,12 F.2d 775, certiorari denied,273 U.S. 716,47 S.Ct. 108,71 L.Ed. 855.

And no reversible error appearing in the record:

It is ordered that the judgment be, and it hereby is, affirmed, for the reasons stated by the District Court in the colloquy on the motion to suppress testimony.Page 695