§
In the Matter of C

19 Cited authorities

  1. Lucas v. American Code Co.

    280 U.S. 445 (1930)   Cited 419 times
    In Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U.S. 445, 50 S.Ct. 202, 74 L.Ed. 538 (1930) an accrual taxpayer sought to deduct as a loss in 1919 the amount of a judgment for breach of contract it suffered in 1922 and paid in 1923.

  2. Helvering v. Winmill

    305 U.S. 79 (1938)   Cited 260 times
    Denying deduction for commissions even though they were regular and recurring expenses in the taxpayer's business of buying and selling securities

  3. Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy

    314 U.S. 441 (1941)   Cited 215 times
    Stating that the "question of domicile" is "to be settled" by reviewing the " indicia of where a man's home is"

  4. Holy Trinity Church v. United States

    143 U.S. 457 (1892)   Cited 921 times
    Holding that although the Alien Contract Labor Act made it a crime to contract with or encourage any alien to migrate to the United States "to perform labor or service of any kind," a cleric who emigrated from England to serve as a pastor of a New York church and thus technically fell within the letter of the Act, was exempt from the Act's reach because of the absurd results that would follow from giving such broad meaning to words of the statute

  5. Sun Printing Publishing Assn. v. Edwards

    194 U.S. 377 (1904)   Cited 196 times
    Noting that domicile is governed by residence and the intention to remain

  6. Costanzo v. Tillinghast

    287 U.S. 341 (1932)   Cited 72 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 110. Argued November 17, 18, 1932. Decided December 5, 1932. 1. Where, in a proceeding in habeas corpus challenging the legality of an order of deportation under the Immigration Act of 1917, it appears that the action of the Secretary of Labor in issuing the order was supported by evidence, his findings are not subject to review by the courts. P. 342. 2. Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 imposes no period of limitation

  7. Anderson v. Watt

    138 U.S. 694 (1891)   Cited 173 times
    Holding a lack of diversity resulting from the citizenship of one of two executors of an estate could not be cured by revocation of the executor's letters, leaving a sole executor

  8. Lapina v. Williams

    232 U.S. 78 (1914)   Cited 77 times
    In Lapina v. Williams it did appear that the alien had practiced prostitution for many years before her temporary departure from the country, and that she not only returned with the intent to continue the practice but did almost immediately engage in it, and continued it until her arrest under the provisions of the Immigration Act.

  9. Hamburg-American Line v. U.S.

    291 U.S. 420 (1934)   Cited 15 times
    In Hamburg, the Supreme Court held that a carrier was liable for a fine despite the alien's later receipt of a discretionary admission by the Secretary of Labor. 291 U.S. at 425-26, 54 S.Ct. 491.

  10. United States v. Parisi

    24 F. Supp. 414 (D. Md. 1938)   Cited 15 times

    No. 2471. August 11, 1938. Bernard J. Flynn, U.S. Atty., and C. Ross McKenrick, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md. Joseph Allen, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant. CHESNUT, District Judge. In this case the United States has filed its bill in equity to cancel the defendant's certificate of citizenship which was heretofore granted in this court on May 8, 1933, the number thereof being 3716601. The proceeding is based on section 405 of Title 8 of the United States Code, 8 U.S.C.A. § 405, which

  11. Section 102 - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 10 times

    8 U.S.C. § 102 June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(13), 66 Stat. 279, eff. Dec. 24, 1952 Section, acts Feb. 5, 1917, ch. 29, §23, 39 Stat. 892; May 14, 1937, ch. 181, 50 Stat. 164; Oct. 29, 1945, ch. 438, 59 Stat. 551; Oct. 15, 1949, ch. 695, §5(a), 63 Stat. 880, related to administration of immigration laws. See sections 1103, 1223(a),and 1260 of this title.