Arbolino v. Shaughnessy, District Director et al.sessa v. Shaughnessy, District Director et al, 204 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1953)
Annotate this CaseSamuel Resnicoff, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City (Nathan Skolnik, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
Before L. HAND and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Since the defendants have no duty but to direct the plaintiff to report in Texas, and that is merely a transmission of the order of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization in Washington, the action is within the decisions of the Supreme Court in Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 [72 S. Ct. 410, 96 L. Ed. 534] and of this court in Reeber v. Rossel, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 334. In Williams v. Fanning, 332 U.S. 490 [68 S. Ct. 188, 92 L. Ed. 95], the Postmaster was himself stopping the receipt of the magazine; an injunction against that was complete relief.
Motion denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
