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.
HARUKA TSURUDOME, Appellant, v. Walter E. CARR, District Director, U. S. Immigration Service, Appellee, 1932 — 62 F.2d 1073 · caselaw · US
General
HARUKA TSURUDOME, Appellant, v. Walter E. CARR, District Director, U. S. Immigration Service, Appellee
62 F.2d 1073·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1932
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
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
HARUKA TSURUDOME, Appellant, v. Walter E. CARR, District Director, U. S. Immigration Service, Appellee.
No. 6774.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1932.
J. Marion Wright, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. MeNabb, U. S. Atty., and Clyde Thomas, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties that this cause abide the decision of this court in Takaji Mukai v. Burnett, etc. (No. 6888) 62 F.(2d) 355, it is ordered that the order of the District Court in this cause he affirmed, and that a decree be filed and entered accordingly.