Wong Him v. Callahan

7 Citing cases

  1. Briggs v. Elliot

    98 F. Supp. 529 (E.D.S.C. 1951)   Cited 25 times

    Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 198, 206, 208, 209; State ex rel. Garnes v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 198, 210; People ex rel. King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 438; People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N.Y. 598, 56 N.E. 81, 48 L.R.A. 113; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 590, 23 P. 54; Reynolds v. Board of Education, 66 Kan. 672, 72 P. 274; McMillan v. School Committee, 107 N.C. 609, 12 S.E. 330, 10 L.R.A. 823; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327; Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 546, 15 S.W. 765, 11 L.R.A. 828; Dameron v. Bayless, 14 Ariz. 180, 126 P. 273; State ex rel. Stoutmeyer v. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342, 348, 355; Bertonneau v. Board, 3 Woods 177, 3 Fed.Cas. 294, [Case] No. 1,361; United States v. Buntin (C.C.), 10 F. 730, 735; Wong Him v. Callahan (C.C.), 119 F. 381. "In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544, 545, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1140, 41 L.Ed. 256, in upholding the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Louisiana requiring the separation of the white and colored races in railway coaches, a more difficult question than this, this court, speaking of permitted race separation, said:

  2. Gong Lum v. Rice

    275 U.S. 78 (1927)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a 9–year–old Chinese–American girl could be denied entry to a "white" school because she was "a member of the Mongolian or yellow race"

    Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 198, 206, 208, 209; State ex rel. Garnes v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 198, 210; People ex rel. King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 438; People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N.Y. 598; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 590; Reynolds v. Board of Education, 66 Kan. 672; McMillan v. School Committee, 107 N.C. 609; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327; Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 546; Dameron v. Bayless, 14 Ariz. 180; State ex rel. Stoutmeyer v. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342, 348, 355; Bertonneau v. Board, 3 Woods 177, s.c. 3 Fed. Cases, 294, Case No. 1,361; United States v. Buntin, 10 F. 730, 735; Wong Him v. Callahan, 119 F. 381. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544, 545, in upholding the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Louisiana requiring the separation of the white and colored races in railway coaches, a more difficult question than this, this Court, speaking of permitted race separation, said:

  3. Houston Contractors Ass'n v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris County

    993 F. Supp. 545 (S.D. Tex. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    These wrongs of racial classification by the government have consequences that are part of our social fabric today, but they cannot be the constitutional predicate for more racial classifications. Bradwell, 16 Wall. 130, 83 U.S. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442; Plessy, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; Wong Him v. Callahan, 119 F. 381 (C.C.N.D.Cal.1902); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944). The sole legitimate connection between the minority subcontracts and transportation is Metro's judgment that — in the aggregate and on the average — these groups still suffer disadvantages in life from historical injustices.

  4. Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, Va.

    84 F. Supp. 253 (W.D. Va. 1949)   Cited 4 times

    Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush., Mass., 198, 206, 208, 209; State ex rel. Carnes v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 198, 210; People ex rel. King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 438, 45 Am.Rep. 232; People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N.Y. 598, 56 N.E. 81, 48 A.L.R. 113; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am.Rep. 405; Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 590, 23 P. 54; Reynolds v. Board of Education, 66 Kan. 672, 72 P. 274; McMillan v. School Committee, 107 N.C. 609, 12 S.E. 330, 10 L.R.A. 823; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am.Rep. 738; Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 546, 15 S.W. 765, 11 L.R.A. 828, 23 Am.St.Rep. 895; Dameron v. Bayless, 14 Ariz. 180, 126 P. 273; State ex rel. Stoutmeyer v. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342, 348, 355, 8 Am.Rep. 713; Bertonneau v. Board, 3 Woods, 177, 3 Fed.Cas. page 294, case No. 1,361; United States v. Buntin, C.C., 10 F. 730, 735; Wong Him v. Callahan, C.C., 119 F. 381. "In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544, 545, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1140, 41 L.Ed. 256, in upholding the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Louisiana requiring the separation of the white and colored races in railway coaches, a more difficult question than this, this court, speaking of permitted race separation, said:

  5. Mendez v. Westminister School Dist. of Orange County

    64 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal. 1946)   Cited 10 times

    (Emphasis supplied.) See, also, Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 48 S.Ct. 91, 72 L.Ed. 172; Wong Him v. Callahan, C.C., 119 F. 381; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am.Rep. 405; Piper et al. v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926. Obviously, then, a violation by a State of a personal right or privilege protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in the exercise of the State's duty to provide for the education of its citizens and inhabitants would justify the Federal Court to intervene.

  6. State ex Rel. Gaines v. Canada

    342 Mo. 121 (Mo. 1938)   Cited 17 times

    Substantial equality and not identity of school facilities is what is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment; and this is provided for the relator by the Lincoln University Act. Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 551; People ex rel. King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 455; State ex rel. Garnes v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 211; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327; State ex rel. Weaver v. Trustees of Ohio State University, 126 Ohio St. 297; Wong Him v. Callahan, 119 F. 382; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 56; School Dist. v. Hunnicutt, 51 F.2d 528; State ex rel. Gumm v. Albritton, 98 Okla. 158, 224 P. 513; Lowery v. Board of Trustees, 140 N.C. 33, 52 S.E. 267; Dameron v. Bayliss, 126 P. 275; Daviess County Board of Educ. v. Johnson, 200 S.W. 315; Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 84; State ex rel. v. Board of Education. 7 Ohio Dec. 129; State ex rel. Dietz v. Easton. 13 Abb. Pr. (N.S.) 165; United States v. Buntin, 10 F. 735; State ex rel. v. Gray, 93 Ind. 306; People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N.Y. 598, 48 L.R.A. 113. The State Legislature is allowed a large measure of discretion in determining the particular school facilities to be used by each race; and the courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion as unconstitutional except in case of a very clear and unmistakable disregard of constitutional rights.

  7. Rice v. Gong Lum

    139 Miss. 760 (Miss. 1925)   Cited 11 times

    In that state the negroes and white both attend the same school. The development of the laws of California along this line is interesting and is shown in Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, and a case in 119 Fed. 381, and another in 82 Cal. 588. It will also be noted that the petition in this case alleges that the Rosedale consolidated school is the only school conducted in this district available for her as a pupil.