Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Watkins

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 3, 1948No. 254, Docket 20965PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Relator contends that 22 U.S.C.A. § 233 was repealed and that therefore he was not convicted of any crime enumerated in 8 U.S.C.A. § 157. We cannot agree; the 1940 Act did not repeal but merely increased the penalty prescribed in 22 U.S. C.A. § 233.3 Nor do we agree with his contention that 8 U.S.C.A. § 157 does not include one who was a citizen when convicted but who is subsequently denaturalized. We think the decree of denaturalization relates'back, at least for this purpose. Cf. Rosenberg v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 475.

He also urges that the deportation warrant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mahler v. EbySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Rosenberg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1932

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Costello v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. United States Ex Rel. Eichenlaub v. ShaughnessySupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. United States v. EichenlaubCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
  4. United States ex rel. Willumeit v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
  5. Elfido Gonzalez Castillo v. Pamela BondiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025

4 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