Legal Opinion

Lewis D. Barton, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11 v. Antonia Sentner

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 20, 1957No. 728; 784PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194.

Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.

They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an opportunity to present the Government’s side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242 (d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1252 (d)(3), “to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. WitkovichSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Sentner v. ColarelliDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1956

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jordan v. WeaverCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
  2. Hurley v. Van LareDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  3. Brenner v. School District of Kansas City, MissouriDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1970
  4. Beck v. McLeodDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1965
  5. Jordan v. WeaverCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973

9 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