Legal Opinion
Paolo v. Garfinkel
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided December 8, 1952No. 10804PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
The sole issue involved in this case is whether, in a review under Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C.A. § 1009, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization is an indispensable party defendant. If he is the present case must fail for want of jurisdiction over the Commissioner.
A rereading of this Court’s opinion in Podovinnikoff v. Miller, 3 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 937, 1 indicates that we answered the question in the affirmative in 1950, hut there seems to have been some disagreement as to what we did settle in that case. 2 This litigation…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williams v. FanningSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Connor v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Podovinnikoff v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Yanish v. WixonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1948
- Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and NaturalizationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Shaughnessy v. PedreiroSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Heikkila v. BarberSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Estrada v. AhrensCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Belizaro v. Zimmerman. Delgado v. ZimmermanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and NaturalizationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.