Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Oyama et al. v. California, 1947 — 330 U.S. 818 · caselaw · US
General
Oyama et al. v. California
330 U.S. 818·Supreme Court of the United States·1947
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 1059.
Oyama et al. v. California.
April 7, 1947.
A. L. Wirin, Charles A. Horsky, James Purcell, Ouy C. Calden and Saburo Kido for petitioners. Fred N. Howser, Attorney General of California, and Everett W. Mattoon, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent. Briefs were filed, as amici curiae, by Edward J. Ennis, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Walter Oellhorn, Arthur Garfield Hays and Harold Evans for the American Civil Liberties Union; Max Badin, George Altman, Louis M. Brown and Clore Warne for the National Lawyers Guild; and Henry Epstein, Will Maslow, Shad Polier and Joseph B. Bobison for the American Jewish Congress, in support of the petition..
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California granted.