Case ID: us_361/html/0808-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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