Ads
related to: legal advice on restrictive covenantssidekickbird.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
Non-compete clauses in relation to contract law are also called restrictive covenants. Landlords may seek and courts may grant forfeiture of leases such as in leasehold estates for breach of covenant, which in most jurisdictions must be relatively severe breaches; however, the covenant to pay rent is one of the more fundamental covenants.
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.
In real estate, a restrictive covenant is a rule or condition placed on a property that outlines what homeowners can and cannot do with their land. These covenants are legally binding and often ...
A developer is suing dozens of homeowners in east Raleigh’s Woodcrest subdivision over their restrictive covenants. What to know. ... 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 ...
"The practice of racially restrictive covenants is a clear example of systemic racism," Golden Valley City Attorney Maria Cisneros said during an online forum on the topic hosted by In the City ...
Ads
related to: legal advice on restrictive covenantssidekickbird.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month