Repouille v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
165 F.2d 152 (1947)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
In 1939, in another country, Louis Repouille (defendant) used chloroform to kill his 13-year-old son, who was severely disabled because of a brain injury. Repouille’s son was blind and mute, had to be fed, was severely mentally impaired, could not control his bladder or bowels, and spent his life in a small crib. Repouille had four other children to whom he was a caring parent. Repouille stated that he killed his disabled son because he and his wife were overwhelmed and could not care properly for their other children. The foreign jury convicted Repouille of murder in the second degree, recommending the lightest possible sentence. The judge sentenced Repouille to probation, which ended in 1945. In the United States, the Nationality Act required applicants for citizenship to demonstrate good moral character during the five years preceding their applications. Repouille filed a petition for citizenship almost five years after his conviction. Repouille became a naturalized citizen, but the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States (United States) (plaintiff) appealed, arguing that he was not of good moral character because of his conviction for murder. The district-court judge held that Repouille was of good moral character, and the United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hand, J.)
Dissent (Frank, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
