Legal Opinion

United States v. Chin Nun Gee

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided November 28, 1930No. 20431PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The complainant’s contention that summary proceeding is authorized under sections 6 and 12 of the Act of May 6, 1882 (22 Stat. 60), as amended July 5,1884 (23 Stat. 116), section 13 of the Aet of September 13, 1888 (25 Stat. 479), section 6 of the Aet of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. 25) and the Act of Nov. 3, 1893 (28 Stat. 7), cannot obtain. The age of the defendant, 27 years, would preclude summary proceedings under the act of 1893 and prior acts, as such acts refer to Chinese in the United States at the time.

Under section 13 of the Aet of September 13, 1888 (25…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Fong Yue Ting v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. State v. GibbonsWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  3. State v. HughlettWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Chin Bak Kan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  5. United States v. Hom LimCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Chan Nom Gee v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API