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 ...
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.
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.
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. [1] In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to ...
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 ...
Case history; Prior: Motion to dismiss denied, 801 F. Supp. 655 (S.D. Fla. 1992); reversed, 11 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994); cert. granted, 513 U.S. 1125 (1995).: Holding; Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to abrogate the sovereign immunity afforded to states under the 11th Amendment; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows parties to seek relief against state ...
Still, he kept his arguments within the national office's parameters. The only case to receive a favorable ruling, ex parte Endo, was also aided by two amicus briefs from the ACLU, one from the more conservative Fraenkel and another from the more putative Wayne Collins. [87] Korematsu v.