Wong Doo v. United States, No. 736
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | VAN DEVANTER |
| Citation | 265 U.S. 239,68 L.Ed. 999,44 S.Ct. 524 |
| Parties | WONG DOO v. UNITED STATES |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 736 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Messrs. Wm. J. Dawley, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Jackson H. Ralston and George W. Holt, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. George Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a Chinese in custody under an order of deportation issued under section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4289 1/4 jj).
In the first petition the validity of the order was assailed on two grounds: One that the Secretary of Labor
Page 240
issued it without lawful jurisdiction, and the other that the administrative hearing on which it rested was not adequate or fair but essentially arbitrary. The return, besides answering the first ground, denied there was in fact any basis for the second. At the hearing in the District Court on these issues the petitioner offered no proof in support of the second ground. The court ruled that the first was not good in law, remanded the petitioner and dismissed his petition. He appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and it affirmed the decision.
Later the second petition was presented to the same District Court. In it the petitioner relied entirely on the second ground set forth before. There was some elaboration in stating it, but no enlargement of the substance. The petitioner sought to distinguish the two petitions by alleging in the second that the earlier one was 'based solely' on the jurisdictional objection; but that allegation was not true. The return in the second case fully denied the charge that the administrative hearing was inadequate, unfair, and arbitrary, set up the prior petition and the proceedings thereon, and prayed a dismissal of the second petition.
After a hearing, the District Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied, held the decision in the first case was conclusive in the second; remanded the petitioner, and dismissed the petition. Wong Sun v. Fluckey, 283 Fed. 989. On an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals that decision was affirmed. Wong Sun v. United States, 293 Fed. 273.
In Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 44 Sup. Ct. 519, 68 L. Ed. ——, just decided we held that in the federal courts the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a refusal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey, No. 71-1074.
...122, 89 S.Ct. 277, 21 L.Ed.2d 246 (1968); Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989 (1924); Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924); see Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 460-465, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), and has its roots in ancie......
-
Passman v. Blackburn, No. 85-3249
...by the Supreme Court in the intervening years before Rule 9(b) was codified. 6 See also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b); Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241, 44 S.Ct. 524, 525, 68 L.Ed. 999 7 In Jones, we decided that a prisoner's actual knowledge of claims that he failed to assert in one p......
-
Moore v. Zant, No. 84-8423
...1068, 1078, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 163-64 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc ) (citing Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924)), or that the law has changed since the earlier petition, Sanders, 373 U.S. at 17, 83 S.Ct. at 1078; Tucker ......
-
Potts v. Zant, Nos. 80-7476
...his right to a hearing on a second application presenting the withheld ground. The same may be true if, as in Wong Doo (v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999) the prisoner Page 741 deliberately abandons one of his grounds at the first hearing. Nothing in the traditions ......
-
United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey, No. 71-1074.
...122, 89 S.Ct. 277, 21 L.Ed.2d 246 (1968); Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989 (1924); Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924); see Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 460-465, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953), and has its roots in ancie......
-
Passman v. Blackburn, No. 85-3249
...by the Supreme Court in the intervening years before Rule 9(b) was codified. 6 See also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b); Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241, 44 S.Ct. 524, 525, 68 L.Ed. 999 7 In Jones, we decided that a prisoner's actual knowledge of claims that he failed to assert in one p......
-
Moore v. Zant, No. 84-8423
...1068, 1078, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 163-64 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc ) (citing Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924)), or that the law has changed since the earlier petition, Sanders, 373 U.S. at 17, 83 S.Ct. at 1078; Tucker ......
-
Potts v. Zant, Nos. 80-7476
...his right to a hearing on a second application presenting the withheld ground. The same may be true if, as in Wong Doo (v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999) the prisoner Page 741 deliberately abandons one of his grounds at the first hearing. Nothing in the traditions ......