Supreme Court of the United States, 1961

United States v. Lucchese

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 20, 1961 · Brennan, Harlan

365 U.S. 290; 81 S. Ct. 565; 5 L. Ed. 2d 568; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1688 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Wayne G. Barnett argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Eugene L. Grimm., Richard J. Burke argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Myron L. Shapiro.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Continental Casualty Company and Employers Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Canadian Universal Insurance Co. (5th Cir. 1979)
Richburg v. Mayor and City Cncl (4th Cir. 1999)
United States v. Lund (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1987)

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

Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This denaturalization proceeding was brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York under § 338 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940! 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 738. The “good cause” affidavit was not filed with the complaint. The District Court dismissed the complaint following our decision in United States v. Zucca, 351 U. S. 91, “without prejudice to the government's right to institute a proceeding to denaturalize the defendant upon *291 the filing of the required affidavit.” 149 F. Supp. 952. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the dismissal motion should have been denied. 247 F. 2d 123. We reversed and ordered the case “remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss” the complaint. 356 U. S. 256. The District Court on the remand declined to order a dismissal “without prejudice” and instead entered an order which did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the Government's appeal in an unreported opinion which stated that “there was no basis for [the district judge] to take action other than he did, namely, to comply with the clear command of the Supreme Court, without attempted embellishment. We have no occasion now to pass on the effect of that command upon possible later litigation.”

The Government filed its petition for certiorari only to assure its right to proceed against the respondent in a new proceeding in the event that we should rule in Costello v. United States, ante, p. 265, that the order entered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in that case precluded the institution of the second denat-uralization action against Costello. Our decision today in Costello establishes that such a form of dismissal does not bar a subsequent proceeding against the respondent. The writ is therefore

Dismissed.

Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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