Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Michael Dayao, an Infant, by His Mother and Next Friend, Norma Dayao v. Joe F. Staley, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Michael Dayao, an Infant, by His Mother & Next Friend, Norma Dayao v. Joe F. Staley, Dist. Dir., Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 424 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-04-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Our decision in this case is controlled by the recent decision of this court in Perdido v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 420 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1969), in which the same issues were raised. 1 Affirmed. 1 . Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the ease on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I; and Murphy v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Michael Dayao, an Infant, by His Mother and Next Friend, Norma Dayao v. Joe F. Staley, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
DAYAO v. STALEY,424 F.2d 1131(5th Cir. 1970)
Michael DAYAO, an infant, By his mother and next friend, Norma Dayao,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe F. STALEY, District Director, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 28647 Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 15, 1970.
Sam Williamson, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Anthony J.P. Farris, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Our decision in this case is controlled by the recent decision of this court in Perdido v. Immigration and Naturalization Service,420 F.2d 1179(5th Cir. 1969), in which the same issues were raised.1

Affirmed.Page 1159
  1. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969,417 F.2d 526, Part I; and Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969,409 F.2d 804, Part I. ↩