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 the Matter of TOKIKO IKEMOTO, on Habeas Corpus. Walter E. CARR, Director of Immigration, Appellant, v. TOKIKO IKEMOTO, Appellee, 1931 — 46 F.2d 1020 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of TOKIKO IKEMOTO, on Habeas Corpus. Walter E. CARR, Director of Immigration, Appellant, v. TOKIKO IKEMOTO, Appellee
46 F.2d 1020·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
In the Matter of TOKIKO IKEMOTO, on Habeas Corpus. Walter E. CARR, Director of Immigration, Appellant, v. TOKIKO IKEMOTO, Appellee.
No. 6130.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 26, 1931.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and William R. Gallagher, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry B. Blee, U. S. Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellant.
J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN and WILBUR, Circuit Judges, and NORCROSS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case upon the facts is similar to that of Ex parte Haruye Suzuki, 36 F.(2d) 424, in which case upon appeal to this court, No. 6119, the order was affirmed.
Order affirmed.