This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't think that's a dick. I heard a professor say that YICK WO is the name of the laundry, which is owned/operated by partners Lee Yick and Wo Lee; somehow the error made it into the court record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you click of the findlaw link at the bottom of the article and have a quick look at the first few paragraphs you'll see that Yick Wo and Wo Lee were two different laundry operators. At least that's my reading of it. Their cases were considered together by the Supreme Court of the US (but not the Supreme Court of California, which considered Yick Wo's writ for Habeas Corpus but not Wo Lee's, which was heard in the Federal Circuit Court) because they were so similar. Liam O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a slight alteration to the "Opinion of the Court" section which, I thought, wrongly implied that the Court ruled the itself to be lawful but then went on to find the operation of the ordinance unlawful. My reading of the case is that this was not the case. The Court opined that, and this is a direct quote, "In the present cases, we are not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity of the ordinances complained of... Though [a] law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance... if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.” That's a direct quote from page 374 of the judgment. - Liam O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) hello there i hate you