SHOTKIN

v.

KAPLAN ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Casey v. United States, 343 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1952)
  …the Court of Appeals had erred in considering the merits of the Government’s position. Cates v. Haderlein, 342 U. S. 804 (1951); Chiarella v. United States, 341 U. S. 946 (1951); Ryles v. United States, 336 U. S. 949 (1949); Bellaskus v. Crossman, 335 U. S. 840 (1948); Fogel v. United States, 335 U. S. 865 (1948); Wixman v. United States, 335 U. S. 874 (1948); Mogall v. United States, 333 U. S. 424 (1948). Similarly, the fact that the Solicitor General does not oppose the granting of a petition for certio…
• Fang v. Kennedy, 317 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
  …consideration of their application to a court of equity for enforcement of due process of law. . 66 Stat. 212, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a). . For a collection of the cases, see Annotation, 94 L.Ed. 329, supplemented, 96 L.Ed. 576. . Bellaskus v. Crossman, 335 U.S. 840, 69 S.Ct. 64, 93 L.Ed. 391 (1948), reversing 5 Cir., 164 F. 2d 412 (1947); Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 304, 34 S.Ct. 488, 58 L.Ed. 967 (1914). See concurring opinion of Judge Lumbard in Leong Leun Do v. Esperdy, 2 Cir., 309 F. 2d 467, 477 (1962).…