Cavett v. Butler
WM. R. CAVETT v. RILEY BUTLER
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
THE COURT.
The above-entitled cases, like Cumings v. Hokr (1948), 31 Cal.2d 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson (1948), 31 Cal.2d 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter (1948), 31 Cal.2d 870 [193 P.2d 744]; In re Laws (1948), 31 Cal.2d 846 [193 P.2d 744]; Clayton v. Wilkins, post, p. 895 [197 P.2d 162]; and Morin v. Crane, post, p. 896 [197 P.2d 162], involve the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of certain lots of land by persons other than those of the Caucasian race. In each of the instant cases the trial court enjoined occupancy of the respectively concerned lots by non-Caucasians.
Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. -] (see also Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. -]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court enforcing the restrictions is in each case reversed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Morin v. Crane L. A. 20376 · 1948-09-15
- Clayton v. Wilkins L. A. No. 20399 · 1948-09-15
- In Re Laws Crim. No. 4698 · 1948-05-18
- Davis v. Carter L. A. No. 19696 · 1948-05-18
- Trautman v. Hokr L. A. 19588 · 1948-05-18
- Cassell v. Hickerson L. A. No. 19685 · 1948-05-18
- In re Laws Crim. No. 4698 · 1948-05-18
- Cassell v. Hickerson L. A. No. 19685; L. A. No. 19523 · 1948-05-18
- Davis v. Carter L. A. No. 19696 · 1948-05-18
Cited by
- Barrows v. Jackson Civ. 18717 · 1952-08-06