241 F.2d 129 - Shoemaker v. Malaxa — 241 F.2d 129

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2017

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1White & Case, New York City (David Hartfield, Jr. and Howard J. Aibel, New York City, of counsel on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

¶2Kissam & Halpin, New York City, (James H. Halpin, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before HINCKS, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant sued in the District Court to recover attorney’s fees, asserting that he was a resident of the District of Columbia and that the defendant was “an alien and a citizen of Roumania.” At the conclusion of the trial Judge Murphy entered judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendant was a stateless alien in that Roumania had revoked his citizenship in 1948.

¶6For the reasons set forth by Judge Bicks in his opinion in Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1955, 133 F.Supp. 496, it seems clear that a stateless person, such as Malaxa was conceded to be, is not a citizen or subject of a foreign state within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2). The complaint was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶7Affirmed.