Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1] Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of ...
Mitsuye "Maureen" Endo Tsutsumi (Japanese: 遠藤 ミツエ, [1] May 10, 1920 – April 14, 2006) was an American woman of Japanese descent who was placed in an internment camp during World War II. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Endo filed a writ of habeas corpus that ultimately led to a United States Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. government could not ...
and Endo and thousands of her fellow detainees were allowed to return to their homes on the Pacific Coast. This case was special for a few reasons. First, Endo was a woman, while the other three internment cases dealt with Japanese American men. And secondly, this case was different because it arose from a habeas corpus petition.
Ex parte. In law, ex parte (/ ɛks ˈpɑːrteɪ, - iː /) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction [1] of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
This page was last edited on 19 December 2019, at 04:29 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. It is often associated with the Japanese exclusion cases (Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States and Ex parte Endo) because it involved wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties under the aegis of military authority, [1 ...
The first appearance was in Justice Murphy's concurrence in Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944). [17] The term was also used in other cases, such as Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946) and Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). It then disappeared from the court's lexicon for 18 years—it reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 ...
Ex parte Endo: 323 U.S. 283 (1944) Japanese-American internment and loyalty, decided same day as Korematsu: United States v. Willow River Power Co. 324 U.S. 499 (1945) nature of property rights which constitute a compensable taking: Cramer v. United States: 325 U.S. 1 (1945) conviction for treason: Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers ...