Legal Opinion

In re Gee Hop

District Court, N.D. California

Decided December 27, 1895No. 11,200PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORROW, District Judge.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Gee Hop, alleging that he was detained and restrained of his liberty on board the steamship City of Peking by the master thereof; that he has applied to the collector for the port of San Francisco to be permitted to land, but said application has been denied. He therefore prays for a writ of habeas corpus, that he may be restored to his liberty, and allowed to land and enter the United States. The petition and agreed statement of facts show that Gee Hop was naturalized as a citizen of the United States by the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dynes v. HooverSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  2. Withers v. PattersonTexas Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Urtetiqui v. D'ArcySupreme Court of the United States · 1835
  4. In re Ah YupUnited States Circuit Court · 1878
  5. Murray v. American Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In re YamashitaWashington Supreme Court · 1902
  2. In re HalladjianU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1909
  3. Miller v. SinjenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
  4. Ichizo Sato v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. MACCAUDBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1973

7 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