Citation network
Reitman Vs. Mulkey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1967
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 369 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
U.S. 369 (1967) Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
Page 387 U. S. 372 The issue arose in two separate actions in the California courts, Mulkey v. ReitmanSearch
-
and Prendergast v. SnyderSearch
-
and petitioner Snyder appealed to the California Supreme Court, which considered the case along with Mulkey v. ReitmanSearch
-
Judgments such as these we have frequently undertaken ourselves. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
McCabe v. AtchisonSearch
-
Robinson v. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Turner v. CitySearch
-
Anderson v. MartinSearch
-
a significant state involvement in private discriminations could amount to unconstitutional state action, Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
prior decisions in this Court in which discriminatory state action was identified. Based on these cases, Robinson v. FloridaSearch
-
commanding discrimination. Also of particular interest to the court was MR. JUSTICE STEWART's concurrence in Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
to what this Court has done in appraising state statutes or other official actions in other contexts. In McCabe v. AtchisonSearch
-
and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case. Similarly, in Nixon v. CondonSearch
-
of the power was viewed as an expression of state authority contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. In Burton v. WilmingtonSearch
-
which therefore could not be considered the purely private choice of the restaurant operator. In Peterson v. CitySearch
-
of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244 , and in Robinson v. FloridaSearch
-
that the restaurant owner had actually been influenced by the state statute or regulation. Finally, in Lombard v. LouisianaSearch
-
The trial court considered the case to be controlled by Abstract Investment Co. v. HutchinsonSearch
-
Cal.App.2d 242, 22 Cal.Rptr. 309, which, in turn, placed major reliance on Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
U. S. 1 , and Barrows v. JacksonSearch
-
of the California Constitution. In Hill v. MillerSearch
-
was superfluous. In Peyton v. BarringtonSearch
-
of the California Constitution. The motion was granted but the judgment was reversed based on the decision in Mulkey v. ReitmanSearch
-
This case was a sequel to Nixon v. HerndonSearch
-
or those with blue eyes. We deal here with a problem in the realm of zoning, similar to the one we had in Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
are zoning the cities along racial lines are state licensees. Zoning is a state and municipal function. See Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
be performed under private auspices in a way the State itself may not act. The present case is therefore kin to Terry v. AdamsSearch
-
licensed by the States Page 387 U. S. 385 constitutes state action in the narrowest sense in which Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
supra, can be construed. For as noted by MR. JUSTICE BLACK in Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
with the public interest. Urban housing, Page 387 U. S. 386 like restaurants, inns, and carriers ( Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
drugstores, or hospitals, is affected with a public interest in the historic and classical sense. See Lombard v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 267 , 27278 (concurring opinion). I repeat what was stated by Holt, C.J., in Lane v. CottonSearch
-
City of Richmond v. DeanSearch
-
which forbids a State to use its authority to foster discrimination based on such factors as race, Takahashi v. FishSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Goss v. BoardSearch
-
point, it is clear that any statute requiring unjustified discriminatory treatment is unconstitutional. E.g., Nixon v. HerndonSearch
-
Peterson v. CitySearch
-
Protection Clause bars as well discriminatory governmental administration of a statute fair on its face. E.g., Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
those peripheral situations in which the question of state involvement gives rise to difficulties. See, e.g., Evans v. NewtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial