Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Palermo v. Tod

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 4, 1924No. 206PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] We, of course, do not review the weight of evidence, nor do we balance or resolve conflicting testimony on appeals from orders sustaining or dismissing writs of habeas corpus in immigration cases.

The relator was excluded on the ground (1) that he had not shown that he was native-born, and thus was barred by the then filled quota; and (2) on the ground that he had committed perjury.

1. In actions or suits, it is fundamental that one may testify to the date and place of birth even though that is hearsay. Registers and certificates, kept or issued by a…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Medeiros v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  2. United States ex rel. Femina v. CurranCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
  3. United States ex rel. Schachter v. CurranCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1925
  4. United States ex rel. Squillari v. DayCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929
  5. United States v. Wong GongCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934

3 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