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.
Magnus AASE, alias Magnus Monson, Appellant, v. John D. NAGLE, Com'r of Immigration, Port of San Francisco, Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Magnus AASE, alias Magnus Monson, Appellant, v. John D. NAGLE, Com'r of Immigration, Port of San Francisco, Appellee
61 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1932
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
Magnus AASE, alias Magnus Monson, Appellant, v. John D. NAGLE, Com’r of Immigration, Port of San Francisco, Appellee.
No. 6919.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1932.
Cedric W. Petersen, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Lucas E. Kilkenny, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Cirenit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of arguments of counsel for respective parties, ordered order of District Court in this cause affirmed, and that a decree be filed and entered accordingly.