Court Opinion

ID: 9580069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:01:33.693173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:00.641765
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring in the opinion of HUNTLEY, J., on denial of petition for rehearing.
Even without the benefit of the Court’s prior opinion in Patino, it seemed to me that the district court was entirely correct in not allowing the defense to make of Sanchez’s nationality a large issue which would distract the jury from the true nuts and bolts of the case. Sanchez was injured in Idaho, and it was the laws of Idaho to *632which he was subjected, as was also his employer, when he was injured.
The trial court apparently also could not see any valid reason for considering whether the injured workman in this case was from Ireland, from Japan, from India, from Australia, or from Mexico. History has taught us all well that these fifty United States are a melting pot for all nationalities.
It may be that I am remiss in my reading abilities, but if not, then perhaps in my ability to comprehend. What I get out of a number of readings of Patino is that Justice Donaldson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the jury was properly informed concerning the laws of the United States which governed minimum wages in the United States — not Mexico or some other country to which Patino might later move.