8 U.S.C. § 1 to 18
Repealed or Omitted
8 U.S.C. § 6 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 8 U.S.C. § 1 to 18, shown below.
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1927–1995 · leading case: Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934).
Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934). “§ 1993; 8 U.S.C. § 6 ; Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.”
Haaland v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 42 F. Supp. 13 (D. Md. 1941). “2534, §§ 6 and 7, 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 , and upon Article 3, of the Protocol to the Treaty between the United States, Sweden and Norway, of May 26th, 1869, 17 Stat.”
Schaufus v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 45 F. Supp. 61 (D. Md. 1942). “In support of this contention he relies upon Act March 2, 1907, §§ 6, 7 as amended in 1933 and 1934, 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 , as recently construed by this court in Haaland v.”
De Los Santos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 525 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “See 8 U.S.C. § 6 (1934). It was left to the courts and to the executive departments that administered the nationality laws to determine when, if ever, illegitimate children qualified for derivative citizenship under Section 1993.”
Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938). “§ 1993, 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 ) under some circumstances recognized citizenship on the part of children of subjects or citizens born out of the jurisdiction of the respective countries.”
Herbert Brownell, Jr. v. Lee Mon Hong, 217 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1954). “797 , 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 , and § 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat.”
Robert Rucker v. William B. Saxbe, 552 F.2d 998 (3d Cir. 1977). “797 , formerly 8 U.S.C. § 6 , which provided that one born abroad of a parent who was a United States citizen and a parent who was an alien was a United States citizen at birth and would retain citizenship if (1) he resided in the United States for five years immediately prior…”
Duncan v. United States, 68 F.2d 136 (9th Cir. 1933). “” It is claimed that this latter allegation is insufficient for the reason that although it is alleged that the appellant was born in the Kingdom of Rumania he might nevertheless be a citizen of the United States (8 USCA § 6), but the allegation in language °fi statute that the…”
Battaglino v. Marshall, 172 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1949). “§ 1993, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 , which provided that all children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, were citizens of this country provided their fathers had lived here.”
United States ex rel. Fong on v. Day, 54 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1932). “8 USCA § 6. A hearing was accorded the applicant by a board of special inquiry.”
United States ex rel. Guest v. Perkins, 17 F. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936). “But section 1993 of the same Revised Statutes ( 8 U.S.C.A. § 6 and note) provided: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to…”
Ly Shew v. John Foster Dulles, 219 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1955). “See 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 6 and 601 (g and h), now §§ 1431-1433, 1401.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.