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.
John D. NAGLE, as Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco, California, Appellant, v. Silvio ROSET, Appellee, 1931 — 50 F.2d 1080 · caselaw · US
General
John D. NAGLE, as Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco, California, Appellant, v. Silvio ROSET, Appellee
50 F.2d 1080·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1931
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
John D. NAGLE, as Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco, California, Appellant, v. Silvio ROSET, Appellee.
No. 6258.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 1, 1931.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Alfred L. Branch, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to stipulation of counsel for the respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that -the order of the District Court in. this cause be, and hereby is, reversed.