Legal Opinion

Acheson, Secretary of State v. Mariko Kuniyuki

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 27, 1951No. 12772_1PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Counsel fail to appreciate that Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 70 S.Ct. 292, 94 L.Ed. 287, compels the statement in this court’s opinion to which appellee particularly objects. That statement was: “The fact, if it be a fact, that she did not intend to lose her nationality and did not know that she would lose • it if she voted in these elections is immaterial.”

In the Savorgnan case, the court said, 338 U.S. at page 499, 70 S.Ct. at page 296: “The petitioner’s principal contention is that she did not intend to give up her American citizenship, although she applied for and accepted…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Savorgnan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Savorgnan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Acheson, Secretary of State v. WohlmuthCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  2. Takano v. DullesDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1953
  3. Kiyokuro Okimura v. AchesonDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1953
  4. Sebastian Vaccaro v. Sam Bernsen, Acting Officer in Charge, United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LouisianaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  5. RUSSOBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1965

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API