Shomberg v. United States, No. 134
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | CLARK, FRANK, and HINCKS, Circuit |
| Citation | 210 F.2d 82 |
| Parties | SHOMBERG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Docket Number | No. 134,Docket 22901. |
| Decision Date | 25 January 1954 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
6 practice notes
-
Roth v. Cox, No. 14419.
...representative. The majority has correctly, I think, held that the Jones Act does not afford the right of action asserted, the State 210 F.2d 82 Statutes do. If the action sued on is that afforded by the State, then it must be taken cum onere, and it may not, I think, be held, as the majori......
-
Shomberg v. United States, No. 48
...reason of the pendency of the subsequently instituted deportation action. Both the trial court, 115 F.Supp. 336, and the Court of Appeals, 210 F.2d 82, decided against the petitioner. We granted certiorari, 348 U.S. 811, 75 S.Ct. 24, in order to determine the relationship between § 318 and ......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy, No. 187
...by § 405 (a), but found such a specific exception in § 318, 8 U.S.C. § 1429, as had the court below. Shomberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 82, affirming Application of Shomberg, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 115 F.Supp. 221 F.2d 581 We conclude that the preliminary application for the visa in Septemb......
-
Yanish v. Barber, Civ. A. No. 29013.
...v. Menasche, 1 Cir., 210 F.2d 809; Application of Shomberg, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 115 F.Supp. 336, affirmed Shomberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 82; United States v. Matles-Friedman, D.C.E.D.N. Y., 115 F.Supp. One further indication of congressional intent may be found in the language of the......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
-
Roth v. Cox, No. 14419.
...representative. The majority has correctly, I think, held that the Jones Act does not afford the right of action asserted, the State 210 F.2d 82 Statutes do. If the action sued on is that afforded by the State, then it must be taken cum onere, and it may not, I think, be held, as the majori......
-
Shomberg v. United States, No. 48
...reason of the pendency of the subsequently instituted deportation action. Both the trial court, 115 F.Supp. 336, and the Court of Appeals, 210 F.2d 82, decided against the petitioner. We granted certiorari, 348 U.S. 811, 75 S.Ct. 24, in order to determine the relationship between § 318 and ......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy, No. 187
...by § 405 (a), but found such a specific exception in § 318, 8 U.S.C. § 1429, as had the court below. Shomberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 82, affirming Application of Shomberg, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 115 F.Supp. 221 F.2d 581 We conclude that the preliminary application for the visa in Septemb......
-
Yanish v. Barber, Civ. A. No. 29013.
...v. Menasche, 1 Cir., 210 F.2d 809; Application of Shomberg, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 115 F.Supp. 336, affirmed Shomberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 82; United States v. Matles-Friedman, D.C.E.D.N. Y., 115 F.Supp. One further indication of congressional intent may be found in the language of the......
Request a trial to view additional results