7 Cited authorities
Ahmed v. United States
480 F.2d 531 (2d Cir. 1973) Cited 5 timesAnalyzing whether a bond "was violated in a substantial way" under § 103.6
Crane v. Buckley
203 U.S. 441 (1906) Cited 23 timesExplaining "prosecuting to effect" means "prosecuting his appeal with success; to make substantial and prevailing his attempt to reverse the decree or judgment awarded against him"
Earle v. United States
254 F.2d 384 (2d Cir. 1958) Cited 4 timesUpholding forfeiture following violation of bond conditions: “The contention is made that since the alien departed without expense to the United States that no damage has been suffered. A bond, providing for liquidated damages, is particularly appropriate under the facts shown, to compensate for the indirect damage done to the national economy, the expense of investigation and the maintenance of an agency to enforce the provision of the Immigration Laws.”
Watzek v. United States
134 F. Supp. 605 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) Cited 3 timesJuly 11, 1955. Alfred S. Holmes, New York City, for plaintiff. Charles Levine, New York City, of counsel. J. Edward Lumbard, U.S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York. New York City, for the United States. Arthur S. Ecker, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel. PALMIERI, District Judge. The Government makes this motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff's assignor posted a bond on behalf of an alien
Kavounas v. United States, (1950)
89 F. Supp. 689 (Fed. Cl. 1950) Cited 2 timesNo. 47787. April 3, 1950. Albert Kratzok, Philadelphia, Pa., for the plaintiff. Frank J. Keating, Washington, D.C., with whom was Assistant Attorney General H.G. Morison, for the defendant. HOWELL, Judge. Plaintiff sues to recover $500, the proceeds of a Treasury note, deposited as security for a bond conditioned upon the requirements that an alien would depart from the United States by a certain time and that he would not engage in any business or occupation or employment for hire while in the United
United States v. Rosenfeld
109 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1940) Cited 4 timesNo. 11523. February 26, 1940. Rehearing Denied March 19, 1940. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri; John Caskie Collet, Judge. Action on an appearance recognizance by the United States against John A. Rosenfeld and others. From a judgment vacating the forfeiture of the recognizance, the United States appeals. Reversed, and judgment entered for the United States. Harry C. Blanton, U.S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo. (David M. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty