# United States v. Ragen, 314 U.S. 513 (1942)

Canonical: https://mobfiles.org/items/courtlistener-us-v-ragen-314-us-513/

Supreme Court decision of 5 January 1942 reinstating the tax-evasion convictions of James Ragen, Sr. and Arnold and Lester Kruse in the Consensus Publishing Co. case, and describing Moses Annenberg as "the dominant figure" in several horse-race betting enterprises.

Argued December 11, 1941 and decided January 5, 1942, together with the two Kruse cases (Nos. 55 and 56). Justice Black wrote for the Court; Justices Roberts, Murphy and Jackson took no part. The Court reviewed the Seventh Circuit's reversal in [United States v. Molasky](/items/courtlistener-us-v-molasky-118-f2d-128/) and set out the facts that it said the jury "could justifiably have found."

It describes the Consensus Publishing Company as "organized in 1929 to carry on the business of preparing 'run-down' sheets, daily bulletins containing information on horse racing, and selling them to bookmakers." Its stock was held by Arnold Kruse, James Ragen, Sr., William Molasky and Cecelia Investment Company, "a holding company controlled by Moses Annenberg, the dominant figure in several other corporations which were engaged in enterprises connected with betting on horse races." The Court adds that "Kruse and Ragen were executives in other Annenberg companies" and that "Molasky alone lived in St. Louis, where Consensus conducted its principal business operations." Of each weekly distribution, only Cecelia's 30 percent was treated as dividends on the tax returns; the other 70 percent was deducted as "commissions."

The Court held: "The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the District Court affirmed." A footnote says the Government "has not sought review of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversal of the conviction of Molasky" and of James Ragen, Jr. CourtListener's page carries the date February 2, 1942; the opinion itself reads "Decided January 5, 1942."

## Sources

- CourtListener (Free Law Project), text of the opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103582/united-states-v-ragen/