Legal Opinion

United States v. Mirsky

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 12, 1926PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THACHER, District Judge.

The fact is admitted by the answer that the respondent, during the period of five years preceding the issue of his certificate of naturalization, deliberately violated the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and on his plea of guilty was fined for his offense as provided in the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138 % et seq.). The statute requires, as a prerequisite to naturalization, that it shall be made to appear that during the probationary period of five years immediately preceding the application the alien “has behaved as a man of good moral…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. GinsbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. United States v. WexlerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1925
  3. In Re NagyDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1924
  4. In re BonnerDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1922
  5. Ex parte ElsonDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1924

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Schwab v. ColemanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944
  3. United States v. KuscheDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1944
  4. Application of MurraCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
  5. Marcantonio v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950

9 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