355 US 61 Lee You Fee v.Dulles OpenJurist

355 U.S.61.78 S.Ct.138.2 L.Ed.2d 106.LEE YOU FEE,by Lee Q.Pon,His Next Friend,petitioner,v.John Foster DULLES,Secretary of State.No.58.Supreme Court of532 F2d 301 Corniel-Rodriguez v.Immigration and Dulles,236 F.2d 885,887 (7th Cir.1956),rev'd on other grounds,355 U.S.61,78 S.Ct.138,2 L.Ed.2d 106 (1957) (per curiam).20 In Podea,this Court reversed a lower court determination that Podea had lost his citizenship by serving in a foreign army and swearing allegiance to a foreign potentate.ALBERTSON et al.v.SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROLUnited States,118 U.S.App.D.C.61,331 F.2d 807.[2] Under this section the registration statement which accompanies the registration of a Communist-action organization is required to include the name and last-known address of each individual who was a member of the organization at any time during the period of twelve full calendar

AOL - News,Sports,Weather,Entertainment,Local

AOL latest headlines,entertainment,sports,articles for business,health and world news.Abadian v.Lee,117 F.Supp.2d 481 (D.Md.2000) : JustiaConley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,45-46,78 S.Ct.99,2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).In reviewing the complaint,the court accepts all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and reasonable interferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.Ibarra v.United States,120 F.3d 472,473 (4th Cir.1997 Albert L.TROP,Petitioner,v.John Foster DULLES,as However,like denaturalization,see Klapprott v.United States,335 U.S.601,612,69 S.Ct.384,389,93 L.Ed.266,expatriation under the Nationality Act of 1940 is not 'punishment' in any valid constitutional sense.Cf.Fong Yue Ting v.United States,149 U.S.698,730,13 S.Ct.1016,1028,37 L.Ed.905.Simply because denationalization was

Author JACK WASSERMANMatter of S- - U.S.Department of Justice

its order (355 U.S.61 (1957)).A decision following the revised view is Matter of ,7 I. N.Dec.646,which quotes at length from the brief for the Government submitted by the Department of Justice in support of its confession of error in Lee You Fee.The conclusion of theBRYSON v.UNITED STATES - FIREAfter direct review,but before initiating this proceeding,petitioners application for reduction of sentence was rejected,Bryson v.United States,265 F.2d 9 (C.A.9th Cir.),cert.denied,360 U.S.919 (1959).[4] After his conviction,petitioner had been sentenced to five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.Browse Decisions Leagle A leading provider of Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S.Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S.State and U.S.Federal Courts.

CITES BY TOPIC assessment

The commissioner cites United States v.Rindskopf,105 U.S.418; United States v.Anderson,269 U.S.422,443; Reinecke v.Spalding,280 U.S.227,232-233.The first of these may be put aside without discussion as having no bearing upon the point here in controversy.The other two were adequately distinguished by the Circuit Court of Appeals.CORNIEL-RODRIGUEZ v.I.N.S 532 F.2d 301 2d Cir 532 F.2d 301.Important Paras.We believe that a similar result is required in the case before us.The failure to provide the warning mandated by 22 C.F.R.§ 42.122 (d) was fully as misleading as the misinformation given to Podea and certainly as unjust and as seriously prejudicial to her interests.Civil Liberties Docket - Vol.III,No.2 - February,1958Rathbun v.U.S.(U.S.S.C.) Def.convicted of threatening a person's life in interstate telephone call,based on testimony of police who listened in on extension telephone at invitation of recipient of the call.Dec.9 U.S.S.C.(7-2) held such use of extension did not constitute interception within Sec.605.

Furman v.Georgia,408 U.S.238,92 S.Ct.2726,33 L.Ed

Opinion for Furman v.Georgia,408 U.S.238,92 S.Ct.2726,33 L.Ed.2d 346,1972 U.S.LEXIS 169 Brought to you by Free Law Project,a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.GoogleSearch the world's information,including webpages,images,videos and more.Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.Juana Estela Corniel-rodriguez,Petitioner,v.Immigration Acheson,supra; cases discussed in Lee You Fee v.Dulles,236 F.2d 885,887 (7th Cir.1956),rev'd on other grounds,355 U.S.61 ,78 S.Ct.138,2 L.Ed.2d 106 (1957) (per curiam).In Podea,this Court reversed a lower court determination that Podea had lost his citizenship by serving in a foreign army and swearing allegiance to a foreign potentate.

LEE YOU FEE v.DULLES : 355 U.S.61 (1957) : Justia US

u.s.supreme court lee you fee v.dulles,355 u.s.61 (1957) 355 u.s.61.lee you fee v.dulles,secretary of state.certiorari to the united states court of appealsLEE YOU FEE v.DULLES FindLawUnited States Supreme Court.LEE YOU FEE v.DULLES(1957) No.58 Argued Decided November 18,1957.Upon consideration of the record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General,the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its order dismissing the complaint.236 F.2d 885LEE YOU FEE,by Lee Q.Pon,His Next Friend,petitioner,v 355 U.S.61.78 S.Ct.138.2 L.Ed.2d 106.LEE YOU FEE,by Lee Q.Pon,His Next Friend,petitioner,v.John Foster DULLES,Secretary of State.No.58.Supreme Court of

Lee You Fee,by Lee Q.Pon,His Next Friend,Petitioner,v

Oct 28,2011·Respondent's Brief / J LEE RANKIN / 1957 / 58 / 355 U.S.61 / 78 S.Ct.138 / 2 L.Ed.2d 106 / 11-1-1957 Lee You Fee,by Lee Q.Pon,His Next Friend,Petitioner,v.John Foster Dulles,Secretary of State.Matter of Navarette - U.S.Department of JusticeAug 27,2012·Supreme Court,in the case of Lee You Fee v.Dulles,355 U.S.61,the provisions of section 801(c) were held to be a specific exception to section 405(e),and the citizenship retention provisions in the 1952 Act,making the cutoff age for coming to the United States 23 instead of 16,were held to be applicable to all persons born abroad subsequentNorthern Securities Co.v.United States - Joel Dufresne CaseThe first case in this court arising under the Anti-Trust Act was United States v.E.C.Knight Co.,156 U.S.1.The next case was that of United States v.Trans-Missouri Freight Association,166 U.S.290.That was followed by United States v.Joint Traffic Association,171 U.S.505,Hopkins v.United States,171 U.S.578,Anderson v.

One Meal Per Day May Not Be Adequate For Kentucky State

May 15,2007·United States,217 U.S.349,373,378,54 L.Ed.793,30 S.Ct.544 (1910),the Supreme Court said [27] Legislation,both statutory and constitutional,is enacted,it is true,from an experience of evils,but its general language should not,therefore,be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken.Social Spending Just FactsWorld War II began in 1939,the U.S.joined it in 1941,and it ended in 1945.It was the deadliest and most widespread conflict in world history,claiming 4050 million lives.Democrat Lyndon B.Johnson (LBJ) became President of the United States in late 1963 and called for a war on poverty in 1964.Some results are removed in response to a notice of local law requirement.For more information,please see here.12345Next

The Office of the Legal Adviser The State Department

6 An important exception is the various attorneys of the Passport Office of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs.The Chief Counsel of that Office,the attorneys of its Legal and Foreign Divisions,and the administrative Board of Review on Loss of Nationality of the United States still operate in practice relatively independently of the Office,though they are,by the provisions of the U.S.Reports Gibson v.Thompson,355 U.S.18 (1957 Download Image of U.S.Reports Gibson v.Thompson,355 U.S.18 (1957).Free for commercial use,no attribution required.Description U.S.Reports Volume 355 U.S.Reports Seatrain Lines,Inc.,v.United States,355 Download Image of U.S.Reports Seatrain Lines,Inc.,v.United States,355 U.S.181 (1957).Free for commercial use,no attribution required.Description U.S

Volume 1957 - ChanRobles

Fikes v.Alabama,352 U.S.191 (1957) - [Read Full Text of Decision] United States v.Plesha,352 U.S.202 (1957) - [Read Full Text of Decision] United States v.Howard,352 U.S.212 (1957) - [Read Full Text of Decision] Leiter Minerals,Inc.v.United States,352 U.S.220 (1957) - [Read Full Text of Decision] Delli Paoli v.United States,352 U.S.232 (1957) - [Read Full Text of Decision]Volume 355 : Justia US Supreme Court CenterVolume 355,United States Supreme Court Opinions.TEXAS EX REL.PAN AMER.PROD.v.CITY OF TEXAS CITY Citation 355 U.S.603 Court US Supreme Court Date March 3,1958Warren Court (1957-1958) - {{meta.fullTitle}}Jun 17,1957.Citation.354 US 271 (1957) Yates v.United States.A case in which the Court held that willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States government as an abstract principle was not a violation of the Smith Act.Argued.Oct 9,1956.Oct 9,1956.

Year 1957 US Supreme Court Cases FindLaw

December 9,1957 No.32 LEE YOU FEE v.DULLES,355 U.S.61 (1957) November 18,1957 No.58 LEHMANN v.CARSON,353 U.S.685 (1957) June 3,1957 No.72 LEITER MINERALS,INC.,v.UNITED STATES,352 U.S.220 (1957) January 14,1957 No.26 LIBSON SHOPS,INC.v.KOEHLER,353 U.S.382 (1957) May 27,1957 No.64 LIGHTFOOT v.UNITED STATES,355 U.S.2 (1957)