Supreme Court of the United States, 1952

Acheson v. Murata

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 2, 1952 · Adequate, Appellee, Beatings, Being, Black, Compulsion, Douglas, Evidenced, Instances, Militáry, Remand, Sanctions, Services, Should, That, Under, Vacation

342 U.S. 900; 72 S. Ct. 294; 96 L. Ed. 674; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2579 (United States Reports)

Counsel

'Solicitor General Pérlman and Howard K. Hoddick for appellant., A. L. Wirin, Fred. Okrand and Katsuo Miho for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Nishikawa v. Dulles (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
Hisao Murata v. Acheson (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1953)
Acheson, Secretary of State v. Maenza (D.C. Cir. 1953)
AMICO (Board of Immigration Appeals 1963)
S (Board of Immigration Appeals 1958)
Harue Sakamoto v. Dulles (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1953)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The judgment is vacated and the ease is remanded to the District Court for specific findings as to the circumstances attending appellee’s service in the Japanese Army and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion the judgment should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that the findings are adequate to show that the services of appellee to Japan were rendered under the compulsion of militáry and other sanctions, evidenced in some instances by physical beatings, dissents to vacation and remand.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.