Talk:Yick Wo v. Hopkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon


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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

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 76.197.131.163 (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 74.228.165.239 (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 74.228.165.239 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) hello there i hate you


Missing section?[edit]

Did this case go directly to the US Supreme Court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dngrogan (talkcontribs) 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)