Affiliations

• Roxfort Holding Co. v. United States

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1959-09-21 · cited 4×

  This Tucker Act case involved a landlord seeking compensation from the federal government for its brief padlocking of leased premises in October 1954 after levying on a tenant's chattels to enforce tax liens. The court ruled for the government, finding no compensable taking of the landlord's property interests under the Fifth Amendment and no basis for recovery on an express or implied-in-fact contract. Recovery was unavailable on an implied-in-law theory or as a tenant-at-sufferance because the Tucker Act does not extend to such claims, and no authorized government agent had agreed to pay rent. The landlord's alternative deceit argument also failed, as tort claims are outside the Tucker Act's scope.

  propertytaxesfederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,487 words)

• United States v. Friedman

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1958-10-22 · cited 4×

  This case involved a motion by Samuel Friedman and Philip Friedman to suppress evidence of stolen tin ingots seized by FBI agents from the premises of Orchard Refining and Smelting Works, Inc., their family-owned company, during a warrantless search prompted by an anonymous tip. The defendants faced charges under 18 U.S.C. § 659 for receiving stolen goods moving in foreign commerce. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure. The core reasoning was that the Friedmans had no proprietary interest in the ingots, which were managed as a corporate transaction by Orchard employees, and that individuals cannot vicariously assert Fourth Amendment rights belonging to a corporation even if they are its sole shareholders.

  criminal lawprocedureproperty

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,078 words)

• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Vanco, Inc.

  District Court, D. New Jersey · 1958-09-11 · cited 13×

  The case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking an injunction against Vanco, Inc. for offering and selling promissory notes and stock interests through interstate mail without registering them under the Securities Act of 1933. The defendant had solicited former shareholders of a bankrupt corporation to invest additional funds in exchange for notes and shares. The court decided to grant the injunction, reasoning that the notes and stocks qualified as securities under the Act, their sale via mail without registration was unlawful, and no exemption was proven by the defendant.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (380 words)