Legal Opinion

Ex Parte (Ng) Fung Sing

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided July 1, 1925No. 9585PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NETERER, District Judge.

There is no fact in dispute. Against the government’s contention that section 3 of Act of March 2, 1907 (section 3960, Comp. St.), upon wheh petitioner bases her right to enter, was repealed by section 7 of the Act of Sept. 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1022 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 3961b]); thq petitioner asserts that the right to resume “American citizenship” is vested under the act of 1907, supra.

“Citizenship” conveys the idea of membership of a nation. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 627. “Race” means an ethnical stock from a distinct primitive…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Minor v. HappersettSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Gonzales v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  3. Ex Parte Goon DipDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1924
  4. Ex parte PaloDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Perez v. BrownellSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Delavigne v. DelavigneDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1975
  3. Alfafara v. FrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Perez v. BrownellSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Alfafara v. FrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945

3 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