Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Mcboyle v. United States

• 1930 • 283 U.S. 25 • Hughes Court
In the 1930 case McBoyle v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an airplane did not qualify as a vehicle under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act of 1919. The defendant, William McBoyle, had been convicted for transporting a stolen aircraft across state lines. However, he appealed his conviction on grounds that an airplane was not considered a "motor vehicle" according to federal law at that time. The court agreed with him and overturned his conviction in a unanimous decision...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1930
Docket: 552
283 U.S. 25
51 S. Ct. 340
75 L. Ed. 816
1931 U.S. LEXIS 861
Argued: Feb 26, 1931

Mcboyle v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1930 case McBoyle v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an airplane did not qualify as a vehicle under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act of 1919. The defendant, William McBoyle, had been convicted for transporting a stolen aircraft across state lines. However, he appealed his conviction on grounds that an airplane was not considered a "motor vehicle" according to federal law at that time. The court agreed with him and overturned his conviction in a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who noted that while it might seem logical to include airplanes within the definition of vehicles due to their mode of transportation being similar to cars or motorbikes; however, because they were not specifically mentioned in legislation when it was drafted (as air travel was still relatively new), they could not be included within its scope without explicit amendment from Congress.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the MCBOYLE v. UNITED STATES case, there was no dissenting opinion recorded. The unanimous decision of the court was delivered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who ruled that an airplane did not fall under the definition of a vehicle in terms of interstate transportation laws at that time and therefore, McBoyle could not be charged with theft under those specific regulations.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Mar 09, 1931
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms