§
In the Matter of J

12 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Menasche

    348 U.S. 528 (1955)   Cited 750 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting an interpretation of a statutory provision that would nullify the effect of another provision

  2. Carlson v. Landon

    342 U.S. 524 (1952)   Cited 635 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. Mahler v. Eby

    264 U.S. 32 (1924)   Cited 232 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government failed to comply "with all the statutory requirements"

  5. Bridges v. United States

    346 U.S. 209 (1953)   Cited 98 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the WSLA is an exception to the “longstanding congressional policy of repose,” it is “to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose”

  6. Johannessen v. United States

    225 U.S. 227 (1912)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that the retroactive effect of a denaturalization order does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws

  7. Bugajewitz v. Adams

    228 U.S. 585 (1913)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that the determination that an alien is an undesirable person "is not a conviction of crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the Government to harbor persons whom it does not want"

  8. Calder v. Bull

    3 U.S. 386 (1798)   Cited 1,058 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute is considered to be in violation of the ex post facto clause when it inflicts a greater punishment for the commission of a crime than that which was originally assigned to the crime when committed

  9. Pino v. Nicolls

    119 F. Supp. 122 (D. Mass. 1954)   Cited 10 times
    In Pino v. Nicolls, 119 F. Supp. 122 (D.Mass.), aff'd, 215 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1954), an immigration case, the court was confronted by the question of whether a Massachusetts state case in which a defendant was adjudicated guilty of a misdemeanor larceny offense and his case was "placed on file," constituted a "prior conviction" for federal purposes.

  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