UNITED STATES
v.
VANBIERVLIET

U.S. | 1931-12-14
No. 163
284 U.S. 590 Supreme Court of the United States (1931) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:

The facts certified were as follows: The alien entered the United States at Detroit on July 14,1924, without any immigration visa, thus entering in violation of § 13 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (Title 8, § 213, U. S. C.). He was arrested for deportation. January 3, 1930; and the warrant of deportation, based upon the finding “that he-was not, at the time of his entry into the United States, in possession of an unexpired immigration visa,” was issued February 17, 1930. Upon his petition for habeas corpus the District Court at Detroit discharged him from cus- ' tody because the period of limitation provided by § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (Title 8, § 155, U. S. C.) had expired. From that order of discharge the Government appealed. Question certified: “ On January 3, 1930, did § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (§. 155, Title 8, U. S. C.) by its time limitations bar the deportation proceedings? ”

Per Curiam:

Question answered “ No.” Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Klass, 166 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1948)
    …ipal.” Cf. Regina v. Burton, 13 Cox C.C. 71 (1875); see. 1 Brill, Cyclopedia of Criminal Law (1922) 219. Dunn v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356, 80 A.L.R. 161; (1932) 45 Harv.L.Rev. 931; Borum v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 590, 52 S.Ct. 205, 76 L.Ed. 513; see Commonwealth v. Wade, 1944, 156 Pa. Super. 88, 39 A. 2d 460; Commonwealth v. Kirk, 1940, 141 Pa.Super. 123, 147, 14 A. 2d 914, affirmed 1941, 340 Pa. 346. 17 A. 2d 195; Commonwealth v. Mowad, 1939, 136 Pa. Super. 537…
  • Vincenzo Anselmo v. Hardin, 253 F.2d 165 (3d Cir. 1958)
    …37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161; United States v. De Angelo, 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F. 2d 466, 468. . See Note 4, supra. . 8 U.S.C. Sec. 214 (1940 od.) . Philippides v. Day, 1931, 283 U.S. 48, 51 S.Ct. 358, 75 L.Ed. 833; United States v. Vanbiervliet, 1931, 284 U.S. 590, 52 S.Ct. 132, 76 L.Ed. 509; see also United States v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 1951, 189 F. 2d 386, 389; United States ex rel. Vounas v. Hughes, 3 Cir., 1940, 116 F. 2d 171, 174; United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F. 2d 217. . 8 U.…
  • Takaji Mukai v. Burnett, 62 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1932)
    …1917 (8 USCA § 155), and the amendment contained in section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924. This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48, 51 S. Ct. 358, 75 L. Ed. 833, and U. S. v. Vanbiervliet, 284 U. S. 590, 52 S. Ct. 132, 76 L. Ed. —-. See, also, United States ex rel. Leo Stapf v. Corsi, 53 S. Ct. 40, 77 L. Ed. —-, decided by the Supreme Court November 7, 1932; Hendriksen v. Weedin, 61 F.(2d) 1030, decided by this court November 16, 1932. Order affi…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw