Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Legerlotz v. Rogers 361 U.S. 808

← Cases

Legerlotz v. Rogers

361 U.S. 808 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1959-10-12 Docket No. 213 English

Delivered by Majority

Contents

Majority

p. 808
No. 213.
Legerlotz v. Rogers, Attorney General.
Robert H. Reiter for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Townsend, George B. Searls and Irwin A. Seibel for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District-of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari granted. Counsel are directed to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments, among other questions, the question whether the amendment of a “Return Order,” as opposed to a “Notice of Intention to Return,” is permissible, under the pertinent regulations or otherwise, and, if not, the effect of such an amendment on' the pertinent limitations period.[1]

* [Note: This sentence was added by an order entered October 19, 1959.] ■ ■