Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Robique et al. v. Lambert
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 214 F.2d 3
June 4, 1954 Rehearing Denied July 22, 1954
G. W. Gill, Gerard H. Schrieber, New Orleans, La., for appellants.
M. Hepburn Many, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Frederic G. Rita, Robert N. Anderson, Special Assts. to Atty. Gen., George R. Blue, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and BORAH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered under Section 3653, 26 U.S.C.A., in the consolidated causes dismissing for want of jurisdiction suits appellants had brought to restrain the appellee from levying and collecting a special tax of $250.00 on coin operated pin ball machines.
Appellant is here urging upon us: (1) that within the teachings of Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 52 S.Ct. 260, 76 L.Ed. 422, this case presents an exception to the operation of the statute; and (2) that the statute is unconstitutional.
We think it clear that neither of these positions is well taken.
The district judge, in a carefully considered opinion,1 has set out the issues joined and the reasons supporting the judgment. Because we find ourselves in full agreement not only with the result reached but with the reasons given by him, we will content ourselves with saying so and will not further labor the matter.
The judgment is right. It is affirmed.
Robique v. Lambert (Kapsos v. Lambert), D.C., 114 F.Supp. 305