McBoyle v. United States
McBoyle v. United States | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Argued February 26–27, 1931 Decided March 9, 1931 | |||||||
Full case name | McBoyle v. United States | ||||||
Citations |
51 S. Ct. 340; 75 L. Ed. 816; 1931 U.S. LEXIS 861 | ||||||
Prior history | Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | ||||||
Holding | |||||||
The court held that since the law did not specify aircraft, it did not apply to aircraft. | |||||||
Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
Case opinions | |||||||
Majority | Holmes, joined by unanimous | ||||||
Laws applied | |||||||
U.S. Const. |
McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case.
Background
McBoyle transported a plane that he knew to be stolen from Ottawa, Illinois to Guymon, Oklahoma.
Case
McBoyle was accused of violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.[1] The petitioners claimed that since the act did not specifically mention aircraft, it did not apply to aircraft.
Decision
The court held that, since other acts - such as the Tariff Act of 1930[2] - specifically excluded aircraft in its definition of a vehicle, the law must be interpreted narrowly. Justice Holmes stated:
Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.
This case is a good example of the canon of ejusdem generis ("of the same kind, class, or nature").
See also
References
External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
- Full text from Buffalo Center for Law
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 1/29/2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.