United States v. Mayerhofer
UNITED STATES v. MAYERHOFER
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hall (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a complaint seeking to revoke the defendant's naturalization, noting that while the defendant's residence requirements differed from companion cases due to her marriage to a U.S. citizen, the legal standards for 'behavior' and attachment remained identical. The court dismissed the action, holding that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to strike all of the evidence is granted.“The motion to strike all of the evidence is granted;” | agree with court The court granted the motion to strike evidence because it had already determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Since the legal basis for the suit was deficient, the evidence was irrelevant to the outcome. This follows logically from the dismissal. |
Objection to the introduction of any evidence is sustained.“The objection to the introduction of any evidence is sustained, and,” | agree with court Consistent with the granting of the motion to strike, the court sustained the objection to introducing evidence, effectively halting the evidentiary phase of the trial due to the dismissal of the underlying claim. |
Action is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.“It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the within action be and is hereby dismissed.” | agree with court The court relied on the legal conclusions from companion cases (Korner and Kusche) to determine that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court noted that while the defendant's residence requirement was different due to marriage, the 'tests of attachment' (behavior) were the same, leading to the same legal conclusion as the companion cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural dismissal that adopts the reasoning from two companion cases decided the same day. It correctly identifies that the specific residence requirement difference (due to marriage) does not alter the core legal test for 'behavior' and attachment. By adopting the memoranda from the companion cases, the court provides the necessary legal basis for the dismissal. The reasoning is sound within the context of the district court's own prior rulings on identical facts.
Opinion — Hall
HALL, District Judge.
The date of defendant’s naturalization and the period of her membership-in the Brind is different than in the Korner case, United States v. Korner, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 242, but otherwise the allegations-of the complaint are substantially identical. One other difference is noted; it appears-from the face of' the complaint (which is not so in any of the companion cases) that the defendant did not reside in the United States for a period of five years prior to her admission to citizenship. In that connection the complaint alleges her naturalization in this court on Petition Number 246-F—66133. For that reason this court can take judicial notice of its own records and files- and the contents thereof in that matter.. From them it appears that defendant married an American Citizen and hence under the naturalization laws, five year residence was not required. But the tests of attachment are the same as in the cases where there is the requirement of five year residence, that is “behavior”. Thus no different legal problem is presented here than in the Korner and Kusche cases, and the conclusions must be and are the same as *253in those cases. A copy of the Memorandum of Opinion fded today in each of them is attached and adopted as if herein again set out in full. (See 56 F.Supp. 201, 242.) On the basis of the discussions and conclusions stated therein, it is held that the complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The motion to strike all of the evidence is granted;
The objection to the introduction of any evidence is sustained, and, It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the within action be and is hereby dismissed.
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. Korner Civil Action 2578-PH · 1944-06-13
- United States v. Kusche Civil Action 2425-PH · 1944-06-13
Cited by
- United States v. Specht No. 2711 · 1944-11-14