Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Robique v. Lambert

Robique v. Lambert, 214 F.2d 3 (5th Cir. 1954)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1954-07-22
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robique v. Lambert. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
ROBIQUE v. LAMBERT,214 F.2d 3(5th Cir. 1954)
ROBIQUE et al. v. LAMBERT.
No. 14708.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
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,1has 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.Page 4Page 5
  1. Robique v. Lambert (Kapsos v. Lambert), D.C.,114 F. Supp. 305. ↩