No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2017
1 30 Cal. (2d) 719, 185 P. (2d) 805; this Journal,Vol.42 (1948), p. 498.
2 In a concurring opinion joined in by Justice Butledge, Justice Murphy insisted that the legislation was designed solely to discriminate against the Japanese and thus was clearly unconstitutional because “inconsistent with the concept of equal protection of the laws.”
3 This Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p . 209.
4 334 U. S. 385 (June 7, 1948), dealing with South Carolina attempts to control shrimp fishing in the three-mile belt off that state, in a fashion held to discriminate against non-residents o f the state, in violation o f the “privileges and immunities”clause o f the Constitution.