Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Hinkle v. United States

115 F.2d 217

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-10-25
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. These are appeals from convictions under an indictment charging conspiracy to violate and for violation of section 223, Title 27 U.S.C.A., by transporting intoxicating liquors from the state of Arkansas into the state of Oklahoma. The contentions are that the statute of Oklahoma of 1939, 37 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 41^18, inclusive, is violative of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and that conceding its validity arguendo it does not bring the state of Oklahoma under the protection of the provisions of section 223, supra, of the federal statute. The issues thus presented are controlled by the decision of this court in Hastings v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 216, this day decided.

Citator

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

Cited by
3 opinions
HINKLE v. UNITED STATES,115 F.2d 217(8th Cir. 1940)
HINKLE v. UNITED STATES. GENT v. SAME.
Nos. 11705, 11707.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 25, 1940.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas; Heartsill Ragon, Judge.

Ross Hinkle and A.P. (Boots) Gent were convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors from the State of Arkansas into the State of Oklahoma, in violation of Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936, § 3, 27 U.S.C.A. § 223, and of conspiracy to violate the act, and they appeal.

Affirmed.
Jim Barnett, of Oklahoma City, Okla., and John W. Tyree, of Lawton, Okla., for appellants.

Clinton R. Barry, U.S. Atty., of Fort Smith, Ark. (Duke Frederick and John E. Harris, Asst. U.S. Attys., both of Fort Smith, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and DEWEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
These are appeals from convictions under an indictment charging conspiracy to violate and for violation of section 223, Title 27 U.S.C.A., by transporting intoxicating liquors from the state of Arkansas into the state of Oklahoma. The contentions are that the statute of Oklahoma of 1939, 37 Okla.St.Ann. §§ 41-48, inclusive, is violative of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and that conceding its validity arguendo it does not bring the state of Oklahoma under the protection of the provisions of section 223, supra, of the federal statute.

The issues thus presented are controlled by the decision of this court in Hastings v. United States, 8 Cir.,115 F.2d 216, this day decided. On the authority of that decision, the judgments appealed from are affirmed.