U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1955

Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States v. Einar Rasmussen

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 31, 1955 · Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington

221 F.2d 541; 95 U.S. App. D.C. 260; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U. S. Atty., and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time record was filed, entered appearances for appellant., Mr. Jack Wasserman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Irving Tranen, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States v. Einar Rasmussen (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Union Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Nicolaos Hatzistavrou, Also Known as Nickolas Hatzistavrou v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1955)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment, seeking review of an order of deportation. The Government appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff, who is an alien not claiming American citizenship. The deportation order in this case was made under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 874, and neither party suggests that the 1952 Act, 66 Stat. 163, has any application.

The District Court is without jurisdiction to review the order com *542 plained of other than in a habeas corpus proceeding. Heikkila v. Barber, 1953, 345 U.S. 229, 235, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972. This court’s order of February 6, 1951, granting a Government motion to remand tie case to the District Court for trial, was based on the theory that the decision in McGrath v. Kristensen, 1950, 340 U.S. 162, 71 S.Ct. 224, 95 L.Ed. 173, would support jurisdiction in the present case. We think the later decision in Heikkila shows this to have been a mistake, and that our previous order has not become the law of the case which we are required to perpetuate. See White v. Higgins, 1 Cir., 1940, 116 F.2d 312. The case must be remanded-to the District Court with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action. Zank v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 615.

So ordered.

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