Question: Grutter v. Bollinger and Korematsu v. United States, are concerning which mutual organization?

Context articles: Eric Yamamoto
Ex parte Endo
Korematsu v. United States
Grutter v. Bollinger
Farmers Mutual Reinsurance Company Building
UC Berkeley School of Law
Dale Minami
Maureen Mahoney
Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)
Duncan v. Kahanamoku

Eric Yamamoto, the Korematsu Professor of Law and Social Justice at the University of Hawaiʻ i at Mānoa William S. Richardson School of Law, is an internationally recognized expert on issues of racial justice, including racial reconciliation and redress.
 Flowing from the landmark Korematsu v. United States case, he is known for his work as a member of Fred Korematsu's legal team.
Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States.
 Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their "Korematsu v. United States" decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.
 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity.
 The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke".
The Farmers Mutual Reinsurance Company Building is a historic structure located in Grinnell, Iowa, United States.
 "The Iowa Farmers Mutual Reinsurance Association was the first statewide organization of its kind in the United States."
 When it moved to Grinnell from Jefferson, Iowa in 1934 its name was changed to Farmers Mutual Reinsurance Company.
 It was still a relatively small operation at the time that required only simple rented upstairs quarters.
 The present building was first occupied in 1951, but only the first two floors were built.
 The top two floors were completed in 1957, and gave the building its present form.
 The company rented out the first floor to other commercial businesses.
 Farmers Mutual Reinsurance Company moved out of building in 1962 to a larger complex south of Grinnell, and at that time became known as the Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company.
 This building was sold to the General Telephone Company, which occupied the whole building until 1968.
 The Trustees of Iowa (Grinnell) College, GTE Data of Iowa, and DeLong's Sportswear have all subsequently owned the building.
The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, commonly referred to as Berkeley Law and Boalt Hall, is one of 14 schools and colleges at the University of California, Berkeley.
 Berkeley Law is consistently ranked as one of the top law schools in the nation.
 The law school has produced leaders in law, government, and society, including Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, Secretary of State of the United States Dean Rusk, Attorney General of the United States Edwin Meese, United States Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve G. William Miller, Solicitor General of the United States Theodore Olson, and lead litigator of the "Korematsu v. United States" civil rights case, Dale Minami.
Dale Minami (born October 13, 1946) is a San Francisco-based lawyer best known for heading the legal team that overturned the conviction of Fred Korematsu, whose defiance of the World War II Japanese American internment order lead to Korematsu v. United States, one of the most controversial United States Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century.
Maureen E. Mahoney (born August 28, 1954) is a former deputy solicitor general and "top appellate lawyer" at the law firm of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
 Notably, she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003), in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) , also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin.
 The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the University and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1978), to its admissions program.
 The Court's ruling in "Fisher" took "Grutter" and "Bakke" as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court.
 It is often associated with the Japanese exclusion cases ("Hirabayashi v. United States", "Korematsu v. United States" and "Ex parte Endo") because it involved wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties under the aegis of military authority, though in this case neither the plaintiff nor the nominal defendant were Japanese.