<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: 1953 Term Decisions</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Accardi v. Shaughnessy (No. 366)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_366/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Braniff Airways v. Nebraska Board (No. 476)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_476/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Hernandez v. Texas (No. 406)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is it a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause to try a defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or ancestry have, because of that race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the two classes of white or Negro, and extends to other racial groups in communities depending upon whether it can be factually established that such a group exists within a community. In reversing, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment "is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'" but in this case covers those of Mexican ancestry. This was established by the fact that the distinction between whites and Mexican ancestry individuals was made clear at the Jackson County Courthouse itself where "there were two men's toilets, one unmarked, and the other marked 'Colored Men and 'Hombres Aqui' ('Men Here')," and by the fact that no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years. Mexican Americans were a "special class" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Abstract submitted by Professor Marc S. Rodriguez&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_406/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock (No. 115)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_115/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Linehan v. Waterfront Commission (No. 557)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_557/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd (No. 195)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_195/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Sacher v. Association Of The Bar (No. 307)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_307/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (No. 24)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_24_2/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount (No. 19)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_19/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Wilko v. Swan (No. 39)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_39/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
