Supreme Court· 11/19/1928
Jordan v. Tashiro
Citations
- 278 U.S. 123
- 49 S. Ct. 47
- 73 L. Ed. 214
- 1928 U.S. LEXIS 8
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “for more than a century it has been judicially recognized that in a broad sense [commerce] embraces every phase of commercial and business activity and intercourse”
- noting that \for more than a century it has been judicially recognized that in a broad sense [commerce] embraces every phase of commercial and business activity and intercourse\
- noting that “for more than a century it has been judicially recognized that in a broad sense [commerce] embraces every phase of commercial and business activity and intercourse”
- adopting a broad construction of rights under a treaty to liberally construe the rights of Japanese Americans to engage in commerce under a treaty between the United States and Japan
- adopting a broad construction of rights under a treaty to liberally construe the rights of Japanese Americans to engage in commerce under a treaty between the United States and Japan
- “As treaties are to be construed broadly, the treaty need not provide explicitly for equal court access; it need only imply it.” (citing Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 342 (1924)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stone
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn.Supreme Court· 1944-06-05· cited 861×
- Medellin v. TexasSupreme Court· 2008-03-25· cited 548×
- United States v. PinkSupreme Court· 1942-02-02· cited 508×
- Sanchez-Llamas v. OregonSupreme Court· 2006-06-28· cited 451×
- Zschernig v. MillerSupreme Court· 1968-01-15· cited 270×
- Factor v. LaubenheimerSupreme Court· 1933-12-04· cited 257×
- Kolovrat v. OregonSupreme Court· 1961-05-01· cited 232×
- Valentine v. United States Ex Rel. NeideckerSupreme Court· 1936-11-09· cited 188×
- Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1933-01-03· cited 131×
- Bacardi Corp. of America v. DomenechSupreme Court· 1940-12-09· cited 106×
- Saint Luke's Hospital v. Labor Relations CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1946-11-30· cited 90×
- United States v. Keith Douglas BaileyFifth Circuit· 1997-06-12· cited 75×
- Santovincenzo v. EganSupreme Court· 1931-11-23· cited 63×
- Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-AppelleeSeventh Circuit· 1997-06-06· cited 55×
- American Medical Ass'n v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1942-10-12· cited 53×
- Todok v. Union State Bank of HarvardSupreme Court· 1930-05-19· cited 40×
- Ingemar Johansson v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1964-09-02· cited 33×
- National Labor Relations Board v. Central Dispensary & Emergency HospitalD.C. Circuit· 1944-11-13· cited 31×
- American Trust Company, a Corporation v. James G. Smyth, Collector of Internal Revenue and United States of AmericaNinth Circuit· 1957-07-08· cited 29×
- Coplin v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1984-07-30· cited 22×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court· 1824-03-18· cited 2,543×
- Terrace v. ThompsonSupreme Court· 1923-11-12· cited 477×
- Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co.Supreme Court· 1924-02-18· cited 289×
- Geofroy v. RiggsSupreme Court· 1890-02-03· cited 196×
- Asakura v. City of SeattleSupreme Court· 1924-05-26· cited 145×
- Ohio Ex Rel. Clarke v. DeckebachSupreme Court· 1927-05-16· cited 106×
- Webb v. O'BRIENSupreme Court· 1923-11-19· cited 68×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.