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.
In re MATCZAK, 1927 — 21 F.2d 876 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
In re MATCZAK
21 F.2d 876·United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan·1927
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
In re MATCZAK.
District Court, E. D. Michigan.
September 19, 1927.
No. 15312.
Aliens <@=>62(3) — Petitioner, working within judicial district for four years, while family resided elsewhere, held not “resident,” within naturalization requirements (Naturalization Act, § 3 [8 USCA § 357]).
Where petitioner for naturalization had resided with family on farm 'in Pennsylvania for a number of years, and,' though working within district where petition was filed for some four years, family had never resided therein, he was not a “resident,” within meaning of Naturalization Act June 29, 1900, § 3 (8 USCA § 357), prescribing that naturalization shall extend only to aliens resident within judicial district.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Resident.]
Naturalization Proceeding. Petition for naturalization of George Wojeieeh Matczak.
Petition denied.
[MAJORITY — TUTTLE, District Judge.]
TUTTLE, District Judge.
The petition for naturalization, No. 15312, of George Wojeieeh Matczak, filed with this court on April 16,1926, came on regularly for hearing on September 19, 1927. The following were all of the facts presented to the court on the question of the residence of petitioner.
(1) The petitioner was born in Poland in 1884 and arrived in the United States in 1906.
(2) He purchased a farm and established a home in the state of Pennsylvania.
(3) His family has resided upon this farm in Pennsylvania for a number of years and is now residing there.
(4) The petitioner has worked in Detroit at intervals for upwards of four years.
(5) The petitioner’s family has never resided in the state of Michigan.
The court holds that the facts so presented are insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof which is upon the petitioner to show that he is a resident of this district. Therefore he cannot prosecute a petition for naturalization in this jurisdiction, since under section 3 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906 (8 USCA §’ 357), it is prescribed “that the naturalization jurisdiction of all eourts herein specified — state, territorial, and federal — shall extend only to aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such courts.”
Petition denied.