U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1934

United States ex rel. Damiano v. Archibald

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 15, 1934

71 F.2d 1021; 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3379 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eoger O’Donnell, of Washington, D. C. (E. Palmer Ingram, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant., Joseph L. Carter, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md. (James K. Cullen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Washoe (Nev. 2006)

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

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated by the District Judge in his opinion reported in 5 F. Supp. 297, the order appealed from will be affirmed. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hamburg-American Line v. United States, 54 S. Ct. 491, 78 L. Ed. 887, does not touch the question here involved. It was there said that, where a returning alien has the permit prescribed by section 10 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 210), no fine can be imposed under section 16 of the act (8 USCA § 216) upon the transportation company bringing him in. The case contains no intimation that the alien is not subject to deportation if admitted upon ,a permit to which he was not legally en.titled.

Affirmed.

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