TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Spiegel

In re Spiegel, 24 F.2d 605 (S.D.N.Y. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
February 16, 1928
Judges
Bondy
Citations
24 F.2d 6051928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1003

Opinion — Bondy

BONDY, District Judge.

It is assumed that the facts are as stated by the district director of naturalization without contradiction. The petitioner has resided in the United States since April, 1914. In 1923, while he was living here, and his first wife was living in Poland, he appeared before a rabbi in New York City and applied for and obtained a rabbinical decree of divorce. The decree was then sent by him to a rabbi in Poland, where it was delivered to and accepted by his wife.

The petitioner contends that, according to the rabbinical law and the laws of Poland, a divorce granted in, this manner is valid in Poland, and that no court decree was necessary. After the procurement of the rabbinical divorce decree, the petitioner remarried. He is now living with his alleged second wife. He is the father of two children, one the issue of his first marriage, living abroad with his mother, and the other, the issue of his alleged second marriage.

In the case of Chertok v. Chertok, 208 App. Div. 161 , 203 N. Y. S. 163, the Appellate Division held that a divorce granted by a rabbi in this city to a husband, domiciled here, from his wife residing in Russia, consummated in Russia according to rabbinical laws recognized by the Russian government, cannot be regarded as a divorce obtained in Russia, and is void in this state in view of the provisions of section 9, article 1, of the state Constitution, that no divorce shall be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings.

Under such circumstances, petitioner’s second marriage was bigamous. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be regarded as having behaved as a person of good moral character for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the filing of his application.

The application, therefore, must be denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1931: 11941: 11944: 11947: 11958: 12020: 12021: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Petitions of Rudder159 F.2d 695 (2d Cir. 1947)
  2. Petition of R____56 F. Supp. 969 (D. Mass. 1944)
  3. Shikoh v. Murff257 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1958)
  4. In re Taffel49 F. Supp. 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  5. Petition of Horowitz48 F.2d 652 (E.D.N.Y. 1931)
  6. Estate of Semone Grossman, Richard M. Frome, PreliminaryNo. 9892-18 (Tax Ct. May 27, 2021)

Most recent

  1. Estate of Semone Grossman, Richard M. Frome, PreliminaryNo. 9892-18 (Tax Ct. May 27, 2021)
  2. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Bosa Development California II, Inc.No. 3:17-cv-00666 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020)
  3. Shikoh v. Murff257 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1958)
  4. Petitions of Rudder159 F.2d 695 (2d Cir. 1947)
  5. Petition of R____56 F. Supp. 969 (D. Mass. 1944)
  6. In re Taffel49 F. Supp. 109 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Chertok v. Chertok, 208 A.D. 161 (1924) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list