Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 U.S. 52

75 L. Ed. 836

Docket No. 125.

Carr v. Zaja

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 2, 1931.

Decided March 23, 1931.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1931-03-23

2 counsel of record

Relies on The Conqueror · Philippides v. Day · United States v. Munson Steamship Line

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 9–0 · Decided 1931-03-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

60193119401950196019701980decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Attorney General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Dodds, Messrs. Albert E. Reitzel and B. W. Butler, Assistant Solicitors, Department of Labor, Harry S. Ridgely, and Erwin N. Griswold were on the brief, for petitioner.

¶2Mr. Erwin I. Feldman, with whom Mr. J. Edward Keating was on the brief, for respondent.

¶3Mr. Justice Holmes

¶4delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶5This case raises the same question as No. 92, ante, p. 48, but, as stated in No. 92, was decided the other way by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Zaja is a Dalmatian, citizen of Jugo-Slavia. He shipped as a seaman upon an Italian ship and on its arrival at San Pedro, California, deserted the ship on January 25, 1925. He was arrested on October 4, 1928, more than three years after his entry, and after a hearing was ordered to be deported on the same ground as in No. 92. He obtained a *53habeas corpus · Case Law">writ of habeas corpus and was ordered to be discharged from custody. 37 F. (2d) 1016. The judgment must be reversed for the reasons given in No. 92. It is objected that the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals was not stayed, but was issued to the District Court and spread upon its records and that therefore the case is finished. But that does not defeat the jurisdiction of this Court. The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 113. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644, 648. Rule 45.

¶6Judgment reversed.

/283/us/52 · .json · Public domain