Legal Opinion
Da Costa v. Holland
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 2, 1957No. Civ. A. No. 21478PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be dismissed and summary judgment may be entered for the defendant on his motion. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44 S.Ct. 54, 68 L.Ed. 221; Caetano v. Shaughnessy, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 211; Quilodran-Brau v. Holland, 3 Cir., 232 F.2d 183, 185.
In the Quilodran-Brau case the Court said “Advised by his counsel he stood mute in answer to the questions but claimed no privilege under the Fifth Amendment and, indeed, from what we see in the record, could not have done so.” In the present case the plaintiff did claim…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States Ex Rel. Bilokumsky v. TodSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- David Hyun v. Herman R. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Juan Quilodran-Brau v. J. W. Holland, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- Caetano v. ShaughnessyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harper v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Brod v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Vlisidis v. HollandDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
- Brod v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Harper v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970