Logo


Opinions Statutes Gpo Uploaded documents Links Lawyers Questions
Team    

   Search  



MUSCARDIN v. BROWNELL, NEMIROFSKY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, TASOU v. BROWNELL

Jurisdiction: DC Circuit
Decision date: Thursday, 13 October 1955

empty empty empty empty empty (9) visits
BELL v. HOOD

Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
Decision date: Monday, 1 April 1946

empty empty empty empty empty (123) visits

Citation: 242 F.2d 751 empty empty empty empty empty
Neutral citation: 1957 US App (5th) 132 0 votes
Legal status: Precedential 9 visits
Jurisdiction: Fifth Circuit
Decision date: Friday, 29 March 1957
Tags related to the opinion:  no Tags
Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case
Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Page 1, 242 F.2d 751, 751

751

Carl Fraser CADBY, Appellant, ; v. ' ¦' Joseph SAVOBBTTI, District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Miami, Florida, as Agent for Herbert Brownell, Attorney General of the United States, Appellee. No. 16086.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. .: : .March 29, 1957. ,

Page 2, 242 F.2d 751, 752

David W. Walters, Miami, Fla., for appellant.

Richard R. Booth, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, Miami, Fla., Gilbert Zimmerman, Richmond, Va., of counsel, for appellee.

Before RIVES, TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant here, plaintiff below, sought a declaratory judgment and review of a final administrative order entered in immigration deportation proceedings. The appellee here, defendant below, moved "to dismiss the complaint filed in this cause on the grounds that said complaint does not state a cause of action and does not present a controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court." The district court "Ordered and Adjudged that the said motion be and it is hereby granted." The appellee concedes in brief that actually the dismissal was "on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the acx tion." That the district court had jurisdiction is settled by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 77 S.Ct. 545. The appellee urges that the judgment should nevertheless be sustained because it is apparent from the record that the appellant is not entitled to relief. Without passing on that contention, however, we hold that, since the judgment was based upon the erroneous view that the court lacked jurisdiction, it should be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. See Muscardin v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App. D.C. 16,  227 F.2d 31; Bell v. Hood,  327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939. Reversed and remanded.

____________________

[Footnote 1]

1. "The statement of the proceedings had on defendant's motion to dismiss [stipulated pursuant to Rule 75 (n) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C.A.] (T.I)] discloses that the court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action. In effect, the court held: "(1) That the Attorney General is an indispensable party to this action, inasmuch as the matter involves the exercise of his discretion; and "(2) That the court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the Attorney General, since the Attorney General does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court, and proper service had not been made upon Mm."

delicius digg reddit stumbleupon google yahoo technorati slashdot

feedback

invite a friend

         


Provide a new tag:

Rate opinion importance:
Vote: full empty empty empty empty     
full full empty empty empty
full full full empty empty
full full full full empty
full full full full full

 Opinions last viewed:
   242 F.2d 751

 Personal comment:
 
 



© 2008 PreCYdent, Inc. - About PreCYdent - Advertise with us - F.A.Q. - How to cite us

All cases and statutes published on this site are in the Public Domain