Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

WM. R. CAVETT et al., Respondents, v. RILEY BUTLER et al., Appellants.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CAVETT v. BUTLER
(Sep 15, 1948)