41 F.2d 745 - Nagle v. Mendoza — 41 F.2d 745

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1962

8 federal appellate ·

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.

¶1Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and I. M. Peekham, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

¶2H. W. Hutton, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

¶3 *746Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This case, from the standpoint of appellant, presents the single question whether the time limit for the deportation of an alien seaman, fixed by section 34 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 874 [8 USCA § 166]), was repealed by section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 153 [8 USCA § 214]). This court has decided that question in the negative. Nagle v. Hansen (C. C. A.) 17 F.(2d) 557; Carr v. Zaja (C. C. A.) 37 F.(2d) 1016. A reconsideration of these decisions is urged chiefly upon the ground that a different conclusion has since been reached by other courts. But we must decline to reconsider a question twice decided after full consideration, and will leave its further consideration to the Supreme Court.

¶6In view of this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the proceedings before the department were unfair or irregular, or whether we could review the judgment of the court below in any event because of the absence of the testimony or stipulated faets upon which the ease was there heard.

¶7The order is affirmed.