Ball v. Addock

180 F.2d 169
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 18, 1950
Docket10905
StatusPublished

This text of 180 F.2d 169 (Ball v. Addock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ball v. Addock, 180 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1950).

Opinion

180 F.2d 169

In the Matter of the Petition of Joseph BALL or Jozef Bal, Appellant,
v.
Eddie E. ADDOCK, District Director of Immigration and
Naturalization Service for the Detroit District, Appellee.

No. 10905.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1950.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur A. Koscinski, Judge.

Romanoff & Romanoff, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Edward T. Kane and Kenneth W. Smith, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and argument in open court, and the court being duly advised.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the District Court discharging the writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 F.2d 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-addock-ca6-1950.