Glavic v. Beechie

Decision Date18 December 1964
Docket NumberNo. 21342.,21342.
Citation340 F.2d 91
PartiesVicko GLAVIC, Appellant, v. Charles J. BEECHIE, District Director, et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Sam Williamson, Houston, Elmo Schwab, Barker, Barker & Coltzer, Galveston, Tex. for appellant.

James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Morton L. Susman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an opinion and order denying relief under a petition for habeas corpus filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This opinion, which carefully and correctly states the facts and discusses and decides the questions of law presented for decision there, is reported as Glavic v. Beechie, at 225 F.Supp. pages 24 et seq., and we approve and affirm the findings, conclusions, decision and judgment of the District Court.

In addition to the two questions presented for decision and decided below by the district judge,1 appellant seeks to present as a third question here:

"Whether the fact, if it be a fact, that the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Second Congress was in the case of certain states constitutionally defective had the effect of nullifying legislation enacted by that Congress."

This question, which was not in any manner presented for determination or decision in the District Court, is not on the record before us presented for decision, and we do not consider it.

The judgment is affirmed.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge (concurring):

I concur in the result reached by the Court and in that portion of the Court's opinion relating to the first two questions the appellant presented for decision. However, I would decide the third question. I would hold that malapportionment of a part of the House of Representatives of the 87th Congress does not have the effect of nullifying legislation enacted by a Congress that is otherwise both a de facto and de jure legislative body. Texas v. White, 1869, 7 Wall. 700, 74 U.S. 700, 19 L.Ed. 227.

Failure of this Court to consider the appellant's third contention will not cause the Halls of Justice to fall or even to shake a little bit. There is just not enough merit to the argument. At stake, however, is an important principle. Judge Hutcheson, for the court, put it in these words:

"Where, as here, the case below was tried, not upon any misapprehension of the facts, but upon a misapprehension of the effect of those facts in law, appellant may not be prevented from pressing here for the application, to the proven facts, of the correct principles of law. Especially may it not be where, as here, these principles seem to have undergone a change, or at least, to have been differently stated and applied since the trial of the case below. To hold
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 1, 1965
    ...us, we do not consider that we should reuse to consider them merely because they were not urged in the Tax Court." 8 See Glavic v. Beechie, (5th Cir. 1964) 340 F.2d 91. The majority refused to consider a question not presented for determination in the District Court. Judge Wisdom in his con......
  • Stanisic v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NAT. SERV.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 17, 1968
    ...persecution in circumstances where § 1282(b) does apply. See Kordic v. Esperdy, 386 F.2d 232, 238 (2d Cir. 1967); Glavic v. Beechie, 340 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964), affirming 225 F.Supp. 24 (S.D.Texas 1963). Cf. United States ex rel. Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 200 F.2d 288, 288-289 (2d Cir. 1952);......
  • Siu Fung Luk v. Rosenberg
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 25, 1969
    ...United States ex rel. Kordic v. Esperdy, supra, 386 F.2d at 238; Glavic v. Beechie, 225 F.Supp. 24, 27 (S.D.Tex.1963), aff'd, 340 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964). However, appellant asserts that he was entitled to a hearing before a special inquiry officer, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h). The cases......
  • United States v. Esperdy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 8, 1967
    ...was emphasized in a later case, which disagreed with Szlajmer. Glavic v. Beechie, 225 F.Supp. 24 (S.D. Tex.1963), aff'd, 340 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964). In that case, a crewman was denied the right to a formal hearing before a special inquiry officer; the court in Glavic primarily relied on th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT