Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Restrictive covenants have a complex and sordid history. From the 1920s to the 1960s, racially restrictive covenants became a common tool to prevent racial, ethnic and religious minorities from ...
In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants", " covenants, conditions and restrictions " (CCRs) or "deed restrictions" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant).
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.
While CNCs are one of the most common types of restrictive covenants, there are many others. Each serves a specific purpose and provides specific rights and remedies. The most common types of restrictive covenants are as follows: Garden-leave clause: a type of CNC by which an employee is compensated during the period that the employee is ...
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. [1]
[14] [15] [16] In many cases, homeowners and neighborhood associations adopted covenants to prevent homes in their neighborhood from being sold to buyers of color. Restrictive covenants were legal until a 1948 Supreme Court decision in Shelley v.
Largely dating back to the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s, the outdated covenants stretch from north to south, and many places in between. | A Matt Driscoll column
Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642 (App. Div. 1994), was a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that first applied public policy considerations instead of the touch and concern doctrine when deciding the validity of a restrictive covenant.