Shoemaker v. Malaxa

Second Circuit

Shoemaker v. Malaxa

241 F.2d 129

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1957

DocketNo. 128, Docket 24071

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 241 F.2d 129 (Shoemaker v. Malaxa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shoemaker v. Malaxa, 241 F.2d 129 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the District Court to recover attorney’s fees, asserting that he was a resident of the District of Columbia and that the defendant was “an alien and a citizen of Roumania.” At the conclusion of the trial Judge Murphy entered judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant was a stateless alien in that Roumania had revoked his citizenship in 1948.

For the reasons set forth by Judge Bicks in his opinion in Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 133 F.Supp. 496, it seems clear that a stateless person, such as Malaxa was conceded to be, is not a citizen or subject of a foreign state within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2). The complaint was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the District Court to recover attorney’s fees, asserting that he was a resident of the District of Columbia and that the defendant was “an alien and a citizen of Roumania.” At the conclusion of the trial Judge Murphy entered judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant was a stateless alien in that Roumania had revoked his citizenship in 1948.

For the reasons set forth by Judge Bicks in his opinion in Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 133 F.Supp. 496, it seems clear that a stateless person, such as Malaxa was conceded to be, is not a citizen or subject of a foreign state within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2). The complaint was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed.