Citation network
Evans Vs. Abney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 26, 1970
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
-
U.S. 435 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Evans v. AbneySearch
-
U.S. 435 (1970) Evans v. AbneySearch
-
land in Macon to the city for the creation of a park for the exclusive use of white people. This Court held, in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
of the park merely because of the city's compliance with the constitutional mandate of Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
discrimination against Negroes in the park by eliminating the park, a loss shared equally by both races. Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
which held that the park, Baconsfield, could not continue to be operated on a racially discriminatory basis, Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
The early background of this litigation was summarized by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS in his opinion for the Court in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
The Court in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the trust was thus in irreconcilable conflict with the constitutional mandate expressed in our opinion in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
found in Senator Bacon's will. The city accepted the trust with these restrictions in it. When this Court, in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
might otherwise be thwarted by the impossibility of the particular plan or scheme provided by the testator. Moss v. YoungbloodSearch
-
The Georgia courts, construing Senator Bacon's will as a whole, Yerbey v. ChandlerSearch
-
that the State's cy pres doctrine could not be used to alter the will to permit racial integration. See Ford v. ThomasSearch
-
Adams v. BassSearch
-
U. S. 444 any proceeding or transaction to determine if the Constitution has been violated. Presbyterian Church v. HullSearch
-
of the park merely because of the city's compliance with the constitutional mandate expressed by this Court in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
Of course, Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
The construction of wills is essentially a state law question, Lyeth v. HoeySearch
-
Similarly, the situation presented in this case is also easily distinguishable from that presented in Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
First Universalist Society v. SwettSearch
-
Lagrond v. CitySearch
-
possible where the beneficiaries are members of one race only. That was true in 1911 when Bacon made his will. Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
for Negroes, but one equal in quality and service to that municipal facility which is furnished the whites. See Sweatt v. PainterSearch
-
trust was created had become impossible. But it was impossible in those absolute terms even under the regime of Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
the assumption that they would be free to enforce the racially restrictive provision in Senator Bacon's will. In Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
segregated. This is not a case where the reasons or motives for a particular action are arguably unclear, cf. Palmer v. ThompsonSearch
-
nor is it one where a discriminatory Page 396 U. S. 453 purpose is one among other reasons, cf. Johnson v. BranchSearch
-
F.2d 177 (C.A.4th Cir.1966), nor one where a discriminatory purpose can be found only by inference, cf. Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
to be a segregated public park, and, because it cannot be operated as a segregated public park any longer, Watson v. MemphisSearch
-
U. S. 526 (1963), see Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. DawsonSearch
-
Clause, a State may not close down a public facility solely to avoid its duty to desegregate that facility. In Griffin v. CountySearch
-
Brown v. BardSearch
-
by contract of the power to perform essential governmental functions. E.g., Contributors to the Pennsylvania Hospital v. CitySearch
-
An arrangement that purports to prevent a State from complying with the Constitution cannot be carried out, Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
is simply invalid when intended to bind a public body, and cannot be given any effect whatever, cf. Pennsylvania v. BrownSearch
-
affairs in that manner. A finding of discriminatory state action is required here on a second ground. Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
cannot keep them from doing so by enforcing a privately devised racial restriction. See also Sweet Briar Institute v. ButtonSearch
-
from enforcing privately devised racial restriction). Nothing in the record suggests that, after our decision in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
keep the park open. The resolution by which the Mayor and Council resigned as trustees prior to the decision in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
would be lost to the city. The Mayor and Council did not participate in this litigation after the decision in Evans v. NewtonSearch
-
to prevent willing parties from dealing with one another. The decision of the Georgia courts thus, under Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
equal protection. Finally, a finding of discriminatory state action is required on a third ground. In Reitman v. MulkeySearch
-
This approach to the analysis of state action was foreshadowed in MR. JUSTICE WHITE's separate opinion in Evans v. NewtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial