In re Stasinopulos
| Decision Date | 18 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 18242.,18242. |
| Citation | 21 F.2d 71 |
| Parties | In re STASINOPULOS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Peter Stasinopulos, in pro. per.
Peter Stasinopulos, an alien residing in the city of East Tawas, Mich., in the Northern division of the Eastern district of Michigan, filed, on November 16, 1926, in the office of the clerk of this court, located at Detroit, in the Southern division of this district, his petition for naturalization. Said petition came on for final hearing before this court on April 30, 1927. The evidence at such hearing showed that on March 13, 1926, the petitioner had filed a petition for naturalization before the circuit court for Iosco county, a court of record of the state of Michigan, having jurisdiction to admit aliens to citizenship, which petition had been denied by said state court on June 15, 1926, for the reason that, as then and there found and decided by said court, said petitioner was not "a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same," as required by section 382 of title 8 of the United States Code (Comp. St. § 43524). This decision was apparently based upon evidence that the petitioner had been, and then was, violating a statute of the state of Michigan pertaining to the regulation of hotels, and applicable to said petitioner as a hotel keeper. The question now presented to this court in this connection is whether the judgment of the state court is binding upon the petitioner here and precludes the granting of the citizenship sought in the present proceedings. It is now settled that naturalization proceedings before courts having the necessary jurisdiction are judicial, not administrative, in character, and that "in passing upon the application the court exercises judicial judgment." Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 46 S. Ct. 425, 70 L. Ed. 738. It is, therefore, clear that, as the parties to the proceeding before the state court mentioned, the petitioner and the government, are also the parties to the present proceeding, and the questions, including that of the requisite qualifications of the petitioner, passed upon and decided by the state court, are the same questions again presented in the present proceeding, the judgment of the state court referred to is now res judicata here, as between these same parties, and requires this court to deny the present petition, without prejudice to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Cardines
...and not administrative wherein the petitioner and the Government are both parties United States v. Macintosh, supra; In re Stasinopulos, D.C. Mich., 21 F.2d 71. It is a proceeding in open court on a petition for naturalization and ends in a judgment In re Oppenheimer, D.C.Or., 61 F.Supp. 40......
-
IN RE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF FABBRI
...the petitioner in this second application, and that, in effect, this proceeding constitutes a collateral attack on that judgment. In re Stasinopulos, 21 F.2d 71, E.D.Mich.; In re Samowich, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 273; Lakebo v. Carr, D.C., 111 F.2d 732; In re Regan, D.C., 244 F.Supp. 664. It seems......
-
Petition of Zele, 248.
...would not forever debar the petitioner from citizenship. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 732(a) (15); In re Guliano, D.C.N.Y., 156 F. 420; In re Stasinopulos, D.C.Mich., 21 F.2d 71. 1 The statutes here involved are 8 U.S. C.A. §§ 380, 382, quoted in our previous opinion. Section 382 contains the provision......
-
In re Regan
...attack on that judgment. Lakebo v. Carr, 111 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1940); In re Samowich, 70 F.Supp. 273 (W.D.Wash.1947); In re Stasinopulos, 21 F.2d 71 (E.D.Mich.1927). The petition is denied. Settle an order on or before ten (10) days from the date 1 Selective Service Act of 1948, TITLE I: "......