Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kungys Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 02, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

73 entries 4 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Ng Fung Ho Vs. White US Supreme Court · May 29, 1922
  2. Basic, Inc. Vs. Levinson US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1988
  3. Colautti Vs. Franklin US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1979
  4. Pullman-standard Vs. Swint US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1982
  5. Kungys v. United
    Search
  6. States - 485 U.S. 759 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Kungys v. United
    Search
  7. States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Kungys v. United
    Search
  8. a), as illuminated by Chaunt v. United
    Search
  9. and 1623. The dicta in Chaunt v. United
    Search
  10. f)(6). In Fedorenko v. United
    Search
  11. a), and Chaunt v. United
    Search
  12. a), as illuminated by language in Chaunt v. United
    Search
  13. not dispute, that this requires misrepresentations or concealments that are both willful and material. See Fedorenko v. United
    Search
  14. Page 485 U. S. 768 This Court has had occasion to consider the last two requirements only twice. In Chaunt v. United
    Search
  15. A year later, in Costello v. United
    Search
  16. success. Not only have the Courts of Appeals failed to arrive at a single interpretation ( compare United States v. Riela
    Search
  17. F.2d 986 (CA3 1964), and United States v. Rossi
    Search
  18. F.2d 650 (CA9 1962), with Kassab v. INS
    Search
  19. F.2d 806 (CA6 1966), and Langhammer v. Hamilton
    Search
  20. concept as embodied in such statutes. See, e.g., Gonzales v. United
    Search
  21. Weinstock v. United
    Search
  22. Blackmon v. United
    Search
  23. Carroll v. United
    Search
  24. United States v. Lardieri
    Search
  25. United States v. Koonce
    Search
  26. the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed. See, e.g., Weinstock v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Corsino
    Search
  28. NLRB v. Amax
    Search
  29. Coal Co., 453 U. S. 322 , 453 U. S. 329 (1981). See also Perrin v. United
    Search
  30. This test must be met, of course, by evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing. See, e.g., Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  31. Sinclair v. United
    Search
  32. United States v. Abadi
    Search
  33. we have described -- bearing in mind the unusually high burden of proof in denaturalization cases. Baumgartner v. United
    Search
  34. Proof of materiality can sometimes be regarded as establishing a rebuttable presumption. See, e.g., Basic Inc. v. Levinson
    Search
  35. rule of statutory interpretation that no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant. See, e.g., Colautti v. Franklin
    Search
  36. United States v. Menasche
    Search
  37. Supplemental Brief for United States 3. See, e.g., Sharaiha v. Hoy
    Search
  38. I. & N. Dec. 403, 404-405 (1959). See also Ensign v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  39. we recently described falsity and materiality as separate requirements of misrepresentation, see Basic Inc. v. Levinson
    Search
  40. the subjective intent of thereby obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits. See generally Pullman-Standard v. Swint
    Search
  41. Berenyi v. District
    Search
  42. a) Should the materiality standard articulated in Chaunt v. United
    Search
  43. a). See Fedorenko v. United
    Search
  44. conclude that the Court of Appeals improperly made a finding on a disputed question of fact. See Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington
    Search
  45. was ineligible, for, as we have repeatedly emphasized, citizenship is a most precious right, see, e.g., Klapprott v. United
    Search
  46. Klapprott v. United
    Search
  47. time of his application for citizenship. Neither argument is tenable. Over a quarter of a century ago, in Chaunt v. United
    Search
  48. Page 485 U. S. 790 In his separate opinion in Fedorenko v. United
    Search
  49. in such cases by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt. Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  50. an American citizen or to our previous rejection of default judgments in denaturalization proceedings. See Klapprott v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial