Nagle v. Mendoza

Ninth Circuit

Nagle v. Mendoza

41 F.2d 745, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2909

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1930

DocketNo. 6097

StatusPublished

This text of 41 F.2d 745 (Nagle v. Mendoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nagle v. Mendoza, 41 F.2d 745, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2909 (9th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case, from the standpoint of appellant, presents the single question whether the time limit for the deportation of an alien seaman, fixed by section 34 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 874 [8 USCA § 166]), was repealed by section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 153 [8 USCA § 214]). This court has decided that question in the negative. Nagle v. Hansen (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 557; Carr v. Zaja (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 1016. A reconsideration of these decisions is urged chiefly upon the ground that a different conclusion has since been reached by other courts. But we must decline to reconsider a question twice decided after full consideration, and will leave its further consideration to the Supreme Court.

In view of this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the proceedings before the department were unfair or irregular, or whether we could review the judgment of the court below in any event because of the absence of the testimony or stipulated faets upon which the ease was there heard.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case, from the standpoint of appellant, presents the single question whether the time limit for the deportation of an alien seaman, fixed by section 34 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 874 [8 USCA § 166]), was repealed by section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 153 [8 USCA § 214]). This court has decided that question in the negative. Nagle v. Hansen (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 557; Carr v. Zaja (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 1016. A reconsideration of these decisions is urged chiefly upon the ground that a different conclusion has since been reached by other courts. But we must decline to reconsider a question twice decided after full consideration, and will leave its further consideration to the Supreme Court.

In view of this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the proceedings before the department were unfair or irregular, or whether we could review the judgment of the court below in any event because of the absence of the testimony or stipulated faets upon which the ease was there heard.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F.2d 745, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagle-v-mendoza-ca9-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack