Ex Parte (Ng) Fung Sing
District Court, W.D. Washington
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 St.), upon wheh petitioner bases her right to enter, was repealed by section 7 of the Act of Sept. 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1022 [Comp.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
- Minor v. HappersettSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Gonzales v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Ex Parte Goon DipDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1924
- Ex parte PaloDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1924
3Cited by8 opinions
- Perez v. BrownellSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Delavigne v. DelavigneDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1975
- Alfafara v. FrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Perez v. BrownellSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Alfafara v. FrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.