Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Barton Vs. Sentner

Barton vs Sentner

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1957
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99308

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
353 U.S. 963
Subject
Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contempt of Court

Key legal issue
Contempt of Court

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Barton

Respondent

Sentner

Excerpt

barton v. sentner - 353 u.s. 963 (1957) u.s. supreme court barton v. sentner , 353 u.s. 963 (1957) 353 u.s. 963 lewis d. barton, district director, united states immigration and naturalization service, district no. 11, appellant, v. antonia sentner. no. 728. antonia sentner, appellant, v. lewis d. barton, district director, united states immigration and naturalization service, district no. 11. no. 784. supreme court of the united states may 20, 1957 solicitor general rankin, assistant attorney general olney, and beatrice rosenberg, for barton. mr. sydney l. berger, for sentner. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed. see united states v. witkovich, 353 u.s. 194 . they would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the attorney general an apportunity to present the government's side of this important internal security problem. united states v. witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited 242(d)(3) of the immigration and nationality act of 1952, 66 stat. 211, as amended, 8 u.s.c. (supp. iv) 1252(d)(3), 8 u.s. c.a. 1252(d)(3), 'to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the attorney general advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens ....' it passed on clause (3) and no other. this appeal involves other clauses of 242(d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in witkovich. the court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of 242(d). these two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. for a more detailed discussion see their dissent in witkovich. mr. justice burton and mr. justice clark dissent.[ barton v. sentner 353 u.s. 963 (1957) ]

Full Judgment

BARTON v. SENTNER - 353 U.S. 963 (1957)
U.S. Supreme Court BARTON v. SENTNER , 353 U.S. 963 (1957)

353 U.S. 963

Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11, appellant,
v.
Antonia SENTNER.
No. 728.

Antonia SENTNER, appellant,
v.
Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11.
No. 784.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 1957

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, and Beatrice Rosenberg, for Barton.

Mr. Sydney L. Berger, for Sentner.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194 . They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an apportunity to present the Government's side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1252(d)(3), 8 U.S. C.A. 1252(d)(3), 'to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General Advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens ....' It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of 242(d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of 242(d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich. Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK dissent.[ Barton v. Sentner 353 U.S. 963 (1957) ]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial