Supreme Court of the United States, 1957

United States Ex Rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Murff

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 9, 1957 · Per Curiam

355 U.S. 169; 78 S. Ct. 203; 2 L. Ed. 2d 177; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 46 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Benjamin Gim argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Edward J. Ennis., John F. Davis argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Acting Assistant Attorney General McLean and Beatrice Rosenberg.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

Et Min Ng v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States (9th Cir. 1958)
Wong Kwok Sui v. John P. Boyd, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service at Seattle, Washington (9th Cir. 1960)
Wong Kwok Sui v. John P. Boyd, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service at Seattle, Washington (9th Cir. 1960)
Wong Kay Suey v. Rogers (D.C. Cir. 1959)
Oi Lan Lee v. District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Los Angeles, California (9th Cir. 1978)
C-Y-L (Board of Immigration Appeals 1961)
L (Board of Immigration Appeals 1959)

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

Per Curiam.

In view of the representation in the Solicitor General’s argument at the Bar that the blood grouping test requirement here involved is presently and has been for some time applied without discrimination “in every case, irrespective of race, whenever deemed necessary,” and in view of our remand of the case, we need not now pass upon the claim of unconstitutional discrimination.

*170 It appearing that the blood grouping tests made herein were in some respects inaccurate and the reports thereof partly erroneous and conflicting, the judgments heretofore entered are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions that the hearings before the Special Inquiry Officer or a Board of Special Inquiry be reopened, so that new, accurate blood grouping tests may be made under appropriate circumstances, and that relevant evidence may be received as offered on the issues involved. The excludability of petitioners remains to be determined upon those proceedings.

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