United States v. Fisher

N.D. Illinois

United States v. Fisher

137 F. Supp. 519, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2323

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois

DecidedMarch 1, 1955

DocketNo. 54C614

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 F. Supp. 519 (United States v. Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Fisher, 137 F. Supp. 519, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2323 (N.D. Ill. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PERRY, District Judge.

This cause came on to be heard on respondent’s motion to dismiss this action. This Court has carefully examined and ' considered the petition, amendment thereto, said motion to dismiss, and extensive briefs of counsel. Respondent’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the respondent is overruled on the authority of United States v. Tuteur, 7 Cir., 215 F.2d 415, which case counsel for the respondent has neglected to cite to this Court, although he participated in the arguments before the Court of Appeals. Respondent’s contention that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and his various arguments in support of his claim that Section 340(a), 8 U.S. C.A. § 1451(a), is unconstitutional are overruled. The claim of the respondent that paragraph 17 of . the petition should be stricken on the ground that illegal procurement has been eliminated as a ground for denaturalization is overruled. It is the view of this Court that illegal procurement as a ground for denaturalization was saved by Section 405 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 note. Contention of respondent that the following clause in paragraph 11 of the petition: “April 12, 1930, Chicago, Illinois, conspiracy discharged” and sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 17 of the petition should be stricken has been considered by this Court and is sustained. All other contentions of the respondent are overruled.

Ordered—

1. That the clause “April 12, 1930, Chicago, Illinois, conspiracy discharged” in paragraph 11 of the petition be and it is hereby stricken.

2. That sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 17 of the petition be and it is hereby stricken.

[520]*5203. That in all other respects the respondent’s motion to dismiss be and it is hereby overruled.

4. That respondent file an appropriate pleading to the remaining allegations of the petition within twenty (20) days.

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

PERRY, District Judge.

This cause came on to be heard on respondent’s motion to dismiss this action. This Court has carefully examined and ' considered the petition, amendment thereto, said motion to dismiss, and extensive briefs of counsel. Respondent’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the respondent is overruled on the authority of United States v. Tuteur, 7 Cir., 215 F.2d 415, which case counsel for the respondent has neglected to cite to this Court, although he participated in the arguments before the Court of Appeals. Respondent’s contention that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and his various arguments in support of his claim that Section 340(a), 8 U.S. C.A. § 1451(a), is unconstitutional are overruled. The claim of the respondent that paragraph 17 of . the petition should be stricken on the ground that illegal procurement has been eliminated as a ground for denaturalization is overruled. It is the view of this Court that illegal procurement as a ground for denaturalization was saved by Section 405 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 note. Contention of respondent that the following clause in paragraph 11 of the petition: “April 12, 1930, Chicago, Illinois, conspiracy discharged” and sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 17 of the petition should be stricken has been considered by this Court and is sustained. All other contentions of the respondent are overruled.

Ordered—

1. That the clause “April 12, 1930, Chicago, Illinois, conspiracy discharged” in paragraph 11 of the petition be and it is hereby stricken.

2. That sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 17 of the petition be and it is hereby stricken.

[520]*5203. That in all other respects the respondent’s motion to dismiss be and it is hereby overruled.

4. That respondent file an appropriate pleading to the remaining allegations of the petition within twenty (20) days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 F. Supp. 519, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fisher-ilnd-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack