Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

U.S. DECK v. COMMR. OF IMM. NATURALIZATION, 86 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1936)

United States ex rel. CHEW DECK, Relator-Appellant, v.COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION, PORT OF NEW YORK,Respondent-Appellee.[fn*], 86 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1936)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1936-10-19
Topic
general

U.S. DECK v. COMMR. OF IMM. NATURALIZATION, 86 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1936) UNITED STATES of America ex rel.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. DECK v. COMMR. OF IMM. NATURALIZATION, 86 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1936). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. DECK v. COMMR. OF IMM. NATURALIZATION,86 F.2d 1020(2nd Cir. 1936)
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. CHEW DECK, Relator-Appellant, v.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, PORT OF NEW YORK,
Respondent-Appellee.fn*
No. 63.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 19, 1936.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Paul Jones, of New York City, for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Thomas McCall, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Order (17 F. Supp. 78) affirmed.Page 1021
  1. Writ of certiorari denied 57 S. Ct. 508, 81 L. Ed. ___. ↩