General
Legerlotz v. Rogers, Attorney General
361 U.S. 808·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
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
No. 213.
Legerlotz v. Rogers, Attorney General.
Robert H. Reiter for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
United States Court of Appeals for the District-of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari granted. Counsel are directed to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments, among other questions, the question whether the amendment of a “Return Order,” as opposed to a “Notice of Intention to Return,” is permissible, under the pertinent regulations or otherwise, and, if not, the effect of such an amendment on' the pertinent limitations period.
[Note: This sentence was added by an order entered October 19, 1959.] ■ ■