Legal Opinion

United States v. Candela

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 14, 1954PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RYAN, District Judge.

Motion denied except, that, the Government, within ten days, must file an affidavit showing good cause for instituting this action.

Defendant’s objection that § 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451(a) contravenes the Ex Post Facto Clause, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, and the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution are without merit. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 1951, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586. Similarly for his objections that the section is violative of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Bindczyck v.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Harisiades v. ShaughnessySupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Schneiderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Johannessen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. West India Oil Co. (Puerto Rico) v. Bonet, Treasurer of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. Bindczyck v. FinucaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1951

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. ChandlerDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1955
  2. United States v. ShinkevichDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Simons v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
  4. United States v. CollinsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  5. United States v. CostelloDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API