Legal Opinion

The A/S GLITTRE v. Dill

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 12, 1957PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HERLANDS, District Judge.

Whether the doctrine of economic duress applies to the facts of this case is the question presented by plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

In this action, commenced on December 21, 1955, plaintiff seeks to recover a $1,000 fine paid to defendant under the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 U.S.C.A. § 167 and 8 C.F.R. 160.14). Plaintiff, the owner of the motor-vessel Ferncape, is a Norwegian corporation. Defendant is the Collector of Customs for the Port of New York.

On August 26, 1954, the District Director of Immigration…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Little v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Railroad Co. v. CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  3. United States v. MacKSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Union Pacific Railroad v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  5. Adrico Realty Corp. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1928

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. Robert E. MeyerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  2. John Dececco, Sr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
  3. 3M Co. (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing) v. BrownerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
  4. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1965
  5. 3m Company v. Carol M. BrownerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994

1 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