ZANK
v.
LANDON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellate court must consider changes in law occurring after judgment, and if the Supreme Court decision reveals the lower court lacked jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed.
Appellant Zank sued for declaratory relief and review of a deportation order, but the district court ruled against him. Subsequently, the Supreme Cour…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subject Matter Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
This is a motion by appellant to remand the cause to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action.
Appellant Zank brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, against the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Herman R. Landon, for declaratory relief and for a review of the deportation hearing in which it was held that Zank should be deported. The district court rendered a judgment adverse to Zank and he appealed. Included in the findings of fact below were the following: That there were no procedural irregularities in the hearing; that there was. substantial evidence to support the warrant of deportation and that the hearing was fair. The district court’s decision was entered on December 24, 1952. Subsequently, on March 16, 1953, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, at pages 234, 235, 73 S.Ct. 603, holding, that a deportation may be attacked only in a habeas corpus proceeding. Zank apprehends that because of this decision we will be constrained to affirm the judgment and that the facts found will be held res judicata against him.
There is no warrant for Zank’s apprehension. An appellate court, in disposing of a case, must consider any change of law or fact which has occurred since the judgment was entered. Patterson v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 607, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082.
Where, as here, the subsequent-decision of the Supreme Court shows that the district court, and hence this court, has no jurisdiction of the subject matter, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h), 28 U.S.C.A., applies. The-pertinent portion of that rule is “ * * * whenever it appears -by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. * * * ” Likewise it follows that since the district court lacked jurisdiction to take any action on the facts respecting the Immigration Bureau’s right to deport Zank, its findings of fact and conclusions of law are as if not rendered.
The case is remanded to the district court and that court ordered to dismiss it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Donnell v. Wien AIR Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Tancredo R. Verzosa v. Merrill Lynch, 589 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1978)
-
Fed. Home Loan Bank OF SAN Francisco v. Ammann, 225 F.2d 349 (9th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1953)
- Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1935)