Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GOON SHUNG, alias NG SHUNG v. UNITED STATES, 1909 — 212 U.S. 566 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
GOON SHUNG, alias NG SHUNG v. UNITED STATES
212 U.S. 566·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GOON SHUNG, alias NG SHUNG v. UNITED STATES.
. ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ' ■
No. 85.
Submitted January 14, 1909.
Decided January 25, 1909.
A judgment of the District Court of the United States, affirming , an . order of deportation of a Chinese person, affirmed without opinion. Plaintiff in error claimed to be entitled to trial by jury and that he had been denied due process of law.
Mr. Thomas J. Barry, Mr. Harry J. Jaquith and Mr. Benjamin Dellheim for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Judgment affirmed. Act. of September 13,1888, 25 Stat. 476, § 13; Act of May 5, 1892, 27 Stat. 25, §§ 3, 6; Act of March 3, 1893, 28 Stat. 7, § 1; Treaty of 1904, 33 Stat. 2215; Act of April 27, 1904, 33 Stat. 394; United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 213; Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193; Lip Hop Fong v. United States, 209 U. S. 453; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698.