Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Rules for ascertaining whether the benefit of a covenant has been passed to another person who wishes to enforce the covenant were summarised in Small (Hugh) v Oliver & Saunders (Developments) Ltd. in 2006, namely by an express assignment of the benefit, through a building scheme arrangement, usually for a new development of multiple properties ...
In 1926, racially restrictive covenants were upheld by the Supreme Court case Corrigan v. Buckley. After this ruling, these covenants became popular across the country as a way to guarantee white, homogeneous neighborhoods. [7] In Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. in 1926, the Supreme Court also upheld exclusionary zoning.
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 ...
Raleigh builder Steve Sypher is suing Neal, 61, over her property’s restrictive covenant. In fact, he’s suing most of the neighborhood. ... “The city does not enforce restrictive covenants ...
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]
Kraemer precluded judicial enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants. [7] Prior to 1948, the California Real Estate Association routinely promoted and enforced racially restrictive housing covenants to prevent family homes from ending up in the hands of minorities, particularly Negroes .
Later, racially-restrictive covenants were held by Shelley v. Kraemer , 334 U.S. 1 (1948) to be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, [ 3 ] a case in which the private plaintiffs seeking to enforce such a covenant were invoking the power of the state courts.