8 U.S.C. § 747
Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1941–1955 · leading case: United States v. Obermeier
United States v. Obermeier (1951)
“347, 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 . 57 . See, e.g., Baltimore & P.”
Haaland v. Attorney General of the United States (1941)
“And that Act further provides, Section 347, 8 U. S.C.A. § 747, that it shall not be construed “to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, or other document or proceeding which shall be…”
Shaver v. United States (1944)
“§ 906 , Congress deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition two years after January 13, 1941, and bases his argument upon Section 347(b), 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (b), of the Act, which provides that “Any petition for naturalization heretofore filed which may…”
Dominador Dimapilis Aure v. United States (1955)
“The Bertoldi case and the Aberasturi case each involved the situation of a minor child who, under the law then existing, would derivatively become a citizen upon the expiration of five-years residency. Prior to lapse of the necessary period of time, that law was repealed by the…”
United States ex rel. Aberasturi v. Cain (1945)
“The opinion does not make clear whether the saving clause of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (a), operates only one way to serve as a privilege for the alien.”
In re Menasche (1953)
“The Nationality Act of 1940 contained a saving clause, Section 347(a), Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (a), which was not as broad as the saving clause contained in the Nationality Act of 1952, Sec.”
Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States (1942)
“Also, it provides, Section 347, 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 , that it shall not be construed “to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization, certificate of naturalization or of citizenship, or other document or proceeding which shall be valid at the…”
In re Otness (1943)
“1168 , 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (a). Urmeneta’s act, said the Court, “in withdrawing his declaration of intention ‘existed’ at the time the Act [i.”
In re Urmeneta (1941)
“1168 , 8 U.S. C.A. § 747(a) provided, however: “Nothing contained in either [sub] chapter III or in [sub] chapter V of this Act [chapter], unless otherwise provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization,…”
In re McInnis (1943)
“Section 347 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 , entitled “Saving clauses” provides as follows: “(a) Nothing contained in either chapter III or in chapter V of this Act, unless otherwise provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention,…”
In re Samowich (1947)
“8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (a). He further contends that the Act of February 11, 1931, was effective at the time of the entry of the order of this court on May 27, 1935, which Act had the effect of restoring to him any rights that he may have lost by reason of the original withdrawal of…”
In re Pringle (1953)
“…8 U.S.C.A. § 707 (b). . 8 CFR 370.1 . 8 CFR 370.2 . U. S. v. Obermeier, 1950, 2 Cir., 186 F.2d 243 . . Sec. 334(b). . 8 U.S.C.A. § 747 (b).”
— 8 U.S.C. § 747(a) — 1 case
In re Urmeneta (1941)
“1168 , 8 U.S. C.A. § 747(a) provided, however: “Nothing contained in either [sub] chapter III or in [sub] chapter V of this Act [chapter], unless otherwise provided therein, shall be construed to affect the validity of any declaration of intention, petition for naturalization,…”
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.