§
In the Matter of B

11 Cited authorities

  1. Lutwak v. United States

    344 U.S. 604 (1953)   Cited 938 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Distinguishing between an actual “agreement to conceal” and “an afterthought by the conspirator for the purpose of covering up”

  2. Carlson v. Landon

    342 U.S. 524 (1952)   Cited 637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mandatory detention of Communist noncitizens in removal proceedings does not violate the Due Process Clause

  3. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

    342 U.S. 580 (1952)   Cited 577 times
    Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"

  4. Bridges v. Wixon

    326 U.S. 135 (1945)   Cited 467 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding only that a court may not admit hearsay for substantive, as opposed to impeachment, purposes

  5. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding

    344 U.S. 590 (1953)   Cited 282 times
    Holding that an alien who permanently resided in the United States was "a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment" and therefore was entitled to due process

  6. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod

    263 U.S. 149 (1923)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that there is no "presumption of citizenship comparable to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. . . . To defeat deportation it is not always enough for the person arrested to stand mute at the hearing and put the Government upon its proof."

  7. Blau v. United States

    340 U.S. 332 (1951)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that defendant had not overcome the presumption that marital communications are privileged

  8. Wolfle v. United States

    291 U.S. 7 (1934)   Cited 234 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the dictation of a letter to a secretary renders the communication non-confidential

  9. Fraser v. Barton

    324 U.S. 849 (1945)   Cited 31 times

    No. 805. February 26, 1945, OCTOBER TERM, 1944. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Mr. Wils Davis for petitioners. Mr. L. E. Gwinn for Barton et al.; Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge, Messrs. Charles H. Weston, J. Stephen Doyle, Jr., W. Carroll Hunter and Mrs. Mary Connor Myers for the United States, respondents. Reported below: 145 F. 2d 139.

  10. United States v. Ahrens

    113 F. Supp. 22 (E.D. La. 1953)   Cited 7 times

    Misc. No. 854. June 8, 1953. William C. Orchard, New Orleans, La., for petitioner. John N. McKay, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondent. WRIGHT, District Judge. This habeas corpus proceeding was brought to test the validity of an order of deportation issued pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Relator attacks the constitutionality of section 242(b) of that act on the ground that the deportation procedure provided therein denied him due process of law in

  11. Section 242.54 - Nondiscrimination

    24 C.F.R. § 242.54

    Hospital facilities financed with mortgages insured under this part must be made available without discrimination as to race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Hospitals must be operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including 24 CFR part 200, subpart J (Equal Employment Opportunity), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). Racially restrictive covenants are per se illegal and their use is prohibited. The aforesaid