Legal Opinion
Harriott v. Ashcroft
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 1, 2003No. 2:01-cv-05823PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KAUFFMAN, District Judge.
Petitioners Ryan Harriott (“Ryan”) and Sariel Harriott 1 (“Ms. Harriott”) initiated the above-captioned action against Respondents John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Charles Zemski, Acting District Director of the Philadelphia Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), and Robert Wieman, Director of the Administrative Appeals Unit of the INS, by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court subsequently granted Petitioners leave to amend the Complaint to include a…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. JeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Yong Tang v. ChertoffDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2007
- Robertson-Dewar v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Carlebach v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2012
- Robertson-Dewar v. MukaseyDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2009
- A.M.Q.A. v. LugoDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.