Masaoka v. People

California Supreme Court

Masaoka v. People

245 P.2d 1062, 39 Cal. 2d 883, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 315

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1952

DocketL. A. 21479

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 245 P.2d 1062 (Masaoka v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masaoka v. People, 245 P.2d 1062, 39 Cal. 2d 883, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 315 (Cal. 1952).

Pincite

Opinions

THE COURT.

Five brothers, American citizens of Japanese ancestry, agreed among themselves to build a home for their widowed mother, a Japanese alien ineligible to citizenship, who had no property or income other than a small pension. One brother and his wife purchased a residential lot in Pasadena and executed a deed giving the mother a life estate in the property with remainder to the five brothers. The mother, together with her sons and daughter-in-law, then brought this action to determine whether the property had escheated to the state by operation of the Alien Land Law. (I Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 261.) The trial court quieted title in the mother and sons, holding that the Alien Land Law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

Our decision in Sei Fujii v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 718 [242 P.2d 617], is controlling and for the reasons there stated the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

Five brothers, American citizens of Japanese ancestry, agreed among themselves to build a home for their widowed mother, a Japanese alien ineligible to citizenship, who had no property or income other than a small pension. One brother and his wife purchased a residential lot in Pasadena and executed a deed giving the mother a life estate in the property with remainder to the five brothers. The mother, together with her sons and daughter-in-law, then brought this action to determine whether the property had escheated to the state by operation of the Alien Land Law. (I Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 261.) The trial court quieted title in the mother and sons, holding that the Alien Land Law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

Our decision in Sei Fujii v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 718 [242 P.2d 617], is controlling and for the reasons there stated the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 P.2d 1062, 39 Cal. 2d 883, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masaoka-v-people-cal-1952.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack