Yee Won v. White’s Empirical Analysis
256 U.S. 399 · 1921
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle (1925), Department Of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020)
11 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedYee Won v. White (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Lim · Yee Won v. White · Hong Wing v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The treaty of 1891 ( 28 Stat. 1210 ) provided that ‘the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of- Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited,’ but this ‘shall not apply to the return to the United States of any registered Chinese laborer who has a lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States, or property therein of the value of one thousand dollars, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement.’ Exclusion of all Chinese laborers, with certain definite, carefully guarded exceptions, was the manifest end -in view, and for a long time the same design has characterized legislation by Congress. ‘In the opinion of the government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof.’ See Act of May 6, 1882, c. 126, 22 Stat. 58 ; Act of July 5, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 115 ; Act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat 476, 477; Act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25 ; Act of November 3, 1893, c. 14, 2S Stat. 7. “The special object of the treaty of 1894 was to secure assent of China to the limitation or suspension by the United States of immigration or residence of Chinese laborers. Prior to that time rather drastic legislation had undertaken to limit such immigration and residence. These statutes were ‘re-enacted, extended, and continued, without modification, limitation, or condition’ by Act of April 29, 1902, c. 641, 32 Stat. 176 ,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Our statutes exclude all Chinese persons belonging to the class defined as laborers, except those specifically and definitely exempted, and there is no such exemption of a resident laborer’s wife and minor children.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.