Legal Opinion
In re Parrott
United States Circuit Court
Decided March 15, 1880PublishedCited by 27 opinions
Habeas Corpus.
1Opinion of the CourtHoffman, J.
The return in this case shows that the petitioner is imprisoned for an alleged violation of the act of the' legislature of this state, approved February 13, 1880.
Article 19, § 2, of the recently adopted constitution of this state is as follows:
“No corporation now existing, or hereafter formed under the laws of this state, shall, after the adoption of this constitution, employ, directly or indirectly, in any capacity, any Chinese or Mongolians. The legislature shall pass such laws as shall be necessary to enforce this provision.”
In pursuance of this mandate the legislature enacted the law…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Windsor v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Railroad Co. v. HusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York Commissioners of Immigration v. North German LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Ware v. HyltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Takahashi v. Fish & Game CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd., D/B/A Backyard Products Travis Products, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Ohio Ex Rel. Clarke v. DeckebachSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- In Re RamerizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Street v. Varney Electrical Supply Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1903
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.