U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1947

Czuczka v. Rifkind

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided February 19, 1947 · Frank

160 F.2d 308; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2602 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Wachtell, Manheim & Grouf, of New York City (Hans Harnik and Harold Man-heim, both of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner., Louis Steinberg, of New York City (Alvin Lieberman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Application of Weber (District Court, S.D. New York 1950)
Republic of China v. National City Bank of New York. Petition of Republic of China (2d Cir. 1952)
Knauff v. Shaughnessy (2d Cir. 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Ours is an appellate court, without power in ordinary circumstances to control the administration of the district court. We may not, by mandamus, interfere with that administration except in aid of our appellate jurisdiction. When a district judge arbitrarily refuses to hear a case, we may require him to do so.1 But here the judge merely denied a motion to expedite a hearing, and with leave to renew the motion in six months. It is irrelevant that, had we been sitting in the court below, we might not have been satisfied with the vague statement by the government officer of the reasons for the considerable delay in concluding the investigation.

We are not now deciding whether a further postponement at the end of the six months, with no more satisfactory explanation, would be the equivalent of an arbitrary refusal to hear, so as to justify our interference. It is conceivable that such an equivalence would exist were there such an inadequately justified delay for close to twenty-five months after the filing of a naturalization application by an alien married to a citizen, in the light of the Congressional policy embodied in the statutory provision that such an alien may apply for citizenship at the end of two rather than five years. However, we seriously doubt whether, at the expiration of six months, if Czuczka then renews his motion, the district court will permit further delay on the mere statement by the officials that more time is needed for investigation.

Petition denied.

See, e. g., Schwab v. Coleman, 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 672, 156 A.L.R. 355.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.