Lewis D. Barton, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11 v. Antonia Sentner
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Siminoff v. Murff (District Court, S.D. New York 1958)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of Maryland Heights (District Court, E.D. Missouri 1990)
- Jordan v. Weaver (7th Cir. 1973)
- Hurley v. Van Lare (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
- Silvey v. Roberts (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1973)
- Jordan v. Weaver (7th Cir. 1973)
- Brenner v. School District of Kansas City, Missouri (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1970)
- Dymytryshyn v. Esperdy (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
- Resolute Insurance v. North Carolina (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1967)
- Beck v. McLeod (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1965)
- Siminoff v. Esperdy (2d Cir. 1959)
- Siminoff v. Esperdy (2d Cir. 1959)
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
The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194.
They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an opportunity to present the Government’s side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242 (d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1252 (d)(3), “to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens . . . .” It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of § 242 (d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of § 242 (d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich.
Reported below: 145 F. Supp. 569.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.