Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Evans Vs. Newton

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 17, 1966

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

81 entries 4 linked 77 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  2. Public Utilities Comm'n Vs. Pollak US Supreme Court · May 26, 1952
  3. Peters Vs. Hobby US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1955
  4. Shelley Vs. Kraemer US Supreme Court · May 03, 1948
  5. U.S. 296 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Evans v. Newton
    Search
  6. U.S. 296 (1966) Evans v. Newton
    Search
  7. bars a city from acting as trustee under a private will that serves the racial segregation cause. Pennsylvania v. Board
    Search
  8. action is not always easy to determine. See Burton v. Wilmington
    Search
  9. as trustee of property under a private will serving the segregated cause is an obvious example. See Pennsylvania v. Board
    Search
  10. an aspect of the elective process to private groups, they become subject to the same restraints as the State. Terry v. Adams
    Search
  11. Page 382 U. S. 300 ( Burton v. Wilmington
    Search
  12. as to exclude one or more religious groups, those sects may maintain their own parochial educational systems. Pierce v. Society
    Search
  13. remains subject to the restraints of the Fourteenth Amendment, just as the private utility in Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak
    Search
  14. traditionally serves the community. Mass recreation through the use of parks is plainly in the public domain, Watson v. Memphis
    Search
  15. Amendment. Like the streets of the company town in Marsh v.Alabama, supra, the elective process of Terry v. Adams
    Search
  16. supra, and the transit system of Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak
    Search
  17. Watson v. Memphis
    Search
  18. U. S. 526 . And see Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson
    Search
  19. Holmes v. City
    Search
  20. New Orleans City Park Improvement Assn. v. Detiege
    Search
  21. commons, with an easement in favor of the general public. See Mayor & Council of Macon v. Franklin
    Search
  22. Ga. 239. The concept of dedication meant that the property was to benefit the public as a whole. Ford v. Harris
    Search
  23. East Atlanta Land Co. v. Mower
    Search
  24. least, to dedicate land to the public as a whole, at the same time excluding the members of the Negro race. Cf. Brown v. Gunn
    Search
  25. of the state law issues free from the compulsion of an erroneous view of federal law. Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield
    Search
  26. Minnesota v. National
    Search
  27. State Tax Commission v. Van
    Search
  28. to convert the infected private discrimination into state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. Compare Robinson v. Florida
    Search
  29. Peterson v. City
    Search
  30. Newson v. Starke
    Search
  31. Ga. 88, 92 (1872), and has the effect of fully adopting in Georgia the common law of charities, Jones v. Habersham
    Search
  32. to the use of less than the whole public. In the leading case of Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel
    Search
  33. at 2715 (2d ed. 1956). (Emphasis added.) Accord, Trustees of New Castle Common v. Megginson
    Search
  34. Feb. 1939), but the available Georgia authorities are consistent with the rule enunciated by Scott. Compare Bramblett v. Trust
    Search
  35. not charitable), with Houston v. Mills
    Search
  36. means dedication to the public as a whole, and not some portion of the public. See also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Georgia
    Search
  37. the court felt bound to hold such a trust was charitable on the authority of a dictum by Lord Selborne in Goodman v. Mayor
    Search
  38. Lord Blackburn dissented in Goodman v. Mayor
    Search
  39. of a town (in fact, the trust in Goodman v. Mayor
    Search
  40. for its illegal use cannot be escaped by putting it in the hands of new trustees. Cf., e.g., Mormon Church v. United
    Search
  41. rule that this Court will not reach constitutional questions if their decision can reasonably be avoided. Peters v. Hobby
    Search
  42. Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors
    Search
  43. action was appropriately challenged, resigned as trustee. The state courts, obedient to federal commands, Pennsylvania v. Board
    Search
  44. this novel state action theory. Public Utilities Page 382 U. S. 320 Commission of District of Columbia v. Pollak
    Search
  45. theory. Watson v. City
    Search
  46. operated residential community of apartment buildings housing 35,000 residents, Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y v. Metropolitan
    Search
  47. and to a privately owned housing development of 25,000 people alleged to discriminate on racial grounds, Dorsey v. Stuyvesant
    Search
  48. Town Corp., 299 N.Y. 512, 87 N.E.2d 541, 14 A.L.R.2d 133, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 981. See also Hall v. Virginia
    Search
  49. on such a park in trust, so that the statute was but declaratory of existing law pro tanto. See, e.g., Houston v. Mills
    Search
  50. that the Court should have refused to adjudicate the constitutional issue on this cloudy record. See Rescue Army v. Municipal
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial