Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ex Parte Endo

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 18, 1944

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

48 entries 6 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Bowles Vs. Willingham US Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1944
  2. Stromberg Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 18, 1931
  3. Schneider Vs. State US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1939
  4. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  5. Anniston Mfg. Co. Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · May 17, 1937
  6. Brooks Vs. Dewar US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  7. pending appeal from a denial of the writ, and the District Court has jurisdiction to issue the writ. United States v. Crystal
    Search
  8. and the declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941, 55 Stat. 795, has been reviewed in Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  9. effective execution of the program. Congress shortly enacted legislation which, as we pointed out in Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  10. Order must indeed be considered along with the Act of March 21, 1942, which ratified and confirmed it ( Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  11. and Page 323 U. S. 299 discretion so that war might be waged effectively and successfully. Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  12. these are contained in the Sixth Amendment, compliance with which is essential if convictions are to be sustained. Tot v. United
    Search
  13. Moreover, unlike the case of curfew regulations ( Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  14. the court's order complied with in all respects. Thus, it would seem that the case is not moot. In United States v. Crystal
    Search
  15. United States v. Day
    Search
  16. Page 323 U. S. 306 United States v. Schlotfeldt
    Search
  17. F.2d 935, 940. But see Tippitt v. Wood
    Search
  18. United States v. Schlotfeldt
    Search
  19. United States v. Davis
    Search
  20. Sanders v. Allen
    Search
  21. Rivers v. Mitchell
    Search
  22. People v. New
    Search
  23. United States v. Chemical
    Search
  24. United States v. Curtiss-Wright
    Search
  25. Yakus v. United
    Search
  26. Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  27. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  28. United States v. Shreveport
    Search
  29. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Oregon-Washington
    Search
  30. Ashwander v. Tennessee
    Search
  31. Labor Board v. Jones
    Search
  32. Cong.Rec. p. 5983-5985. Congress may, of course, do by ratification what it might have authorized. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United
    Search
  33. U. S. 301 -302. And ratification may be effected through appropriation acts. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United
    Search
  34. the entire evacuation program. As stated more fully in my Page 323 U. S. 308 dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. United
    Search
  35. including the right to move freely into California. Twining v. New
    Search
  36. Crandall v. Nevada
    Search
  37. but I cannot agree with the reasons stated in the opinion of the court for reaching that result. As in Korematsu v. United
    Search
  38. United States v. Crystal
    Search
  39. Hirabayashi v. United
    Search
  40. Tot v. United
    Search
  41. In United States v. Crystal
    Search
  42. Tippitt v. Wood
    Search
  43. United States v. Davis
    Search
  44. United States v. Chemical
    Search
  45. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United
    Search
  46. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United
    Search
  47. Korematsu v. United
    Search
  48. California. Twining v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial