Pino v. Landon
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901, 75 S.Ct. 576, 99 L. Ed. 21239, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 9441239 (1955) |
| Docket Number | SCDB 1954-096,333. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1955 |
| Parties | PINO v. LANDON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. |
Certiorari, 348 U. S. 870, to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
On the record here we are unable to say that the conviction has attained such finality as to support an order of deportation within the contemplation of § 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The judgment is reversed.
Reuben Goodman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Paul T. Smith and Jacob Spiegel.
John F. Davis argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Richard J. Blanchard.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1 cases
-
In re Punu
...of law independent of the new statutory definition. Moreover, analysis which looks first to pre-IIRIRA case law such as Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955) (per curiam), pre-IIRIRA rulings such as Ozkok, or pre-IIRIRA regulations, and then seeks to determine what portion of these earlier au......
3 books & journal articles
-
INDEX OF CASES
...U. S. 388) 175 Pan-Atlantic Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line (353 U. S. 436) 225 Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.; Ryan Stevedoring Corp. v. (349 U. S. 901, rehearing granted 349 U. S. 926) 374 Paramount Pictures; United States v. (334 U.S. 131) 352 Parke, Davis & Co.; United States v. (362 U. S. 2......
-
Rehearings in the Supreme Court of the United States.
...States, supra note 44.[46] Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic 5.5. Corp., rehearing granted, 349 U. S. 926, following affirmance at 349 U. S. 901; Indian Towing Co. v. United States, rehearing granted, 349 U. S. 926, following affirmance at 349 U. S. 902; Thompson v. Coastal Oil Co., rehe......
-
How Crime-based Deportations Undermine State Sovereignty and Community Rehabilitation
...explicitly defined convictions. In 1955, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue in a perfunctory manner in Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955). The conviction at issue was from Maryland, and was issued under a procedure that allowed a sentence to be "revoked" and to be put "on ......