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.
UNITED STATES ex rel. Morris ROSENZWEIG, by His Next Friend and Attorney, Adrian Bonnelly, Appellant, v. John C. GROOME, Warden Eastern State Penitentiary, and John B. McCandless, Commissioner of Immigration, Appellees, 1929 — 30 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES ex rel. Morris ROSENZWEIG, by His Next Friend and Attorney, Adrian Bonnelly, Appellant, v. John C. GROOME, Warden Eastern State Penitentiary, and John B. McCandless, Commissioner of Immigration, Appellees
30 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1929
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
UNITED STATES ex rel. Morris ROSENZWEIG, by His Next Friend and Attorney, Adrian Bonnelly, Appellant, v. John C. GROOME, Warden Eastern State Penitentiary, and John B. McCandless, Commissioner of Immigration, Appellees.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 21, 1929.
No. 3855.
Adrian Bonnelly, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Charles Denby, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We have examined with care the proofs in this ease, and find no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the immigration authorities, as well as by the judge below (memorandum decision). The decree dismissing the writ of habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.