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.
Dennis TZARKIS, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Inspector in Charge of Immigration Bureau, Appellee, 1924 — 3 F.2d 277 · caselaw · US
General
Dennis TZARKIS, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Inspector in Charge of Immigration Bureau, Appellee
3 F.2d 277·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1924
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
Dennis TZARKIS, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Inspector in Charge of Immigration Bureau, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
November 25, 1924.
Rehearing Denied January 2, 1925.)
No. 3409.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
Wm. G. Anderson and Edward M. Seymour, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
J. A. O'Callaghan, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from an order discharging writ of habeas corpus sued out upon an order of the Secretary of Labor for appellant’s deportation. Prom an examination of the record we are satisfied that it amply" supports the findings made by the Second Assistant Secretary of Labor to the effect that appellant was “connected with the management of a house of prostitution * * * after having entered the United States.”
The fact that such connection did not occur until more than five years subsequent to his entry, is immaterial. Grkic v. United States (D. C.) 3 F.(2d) 276.
The order appealed from is affirmed.