Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Shelley Vs. Kraemer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 03, 1948

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

69 entries 9 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Corrigan Vs. Buckley US Supreme Court · May 24, 1926
  2. Buchanan Vs. Warley US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1917
  3. United States Vs. Cruikshank US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  4. Neal Vs. Delaware US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  5. Scott Vs. Mcneal US Supreme Court · May 14, 1894
  6. Hovey Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · May 24, 1897
  7. Carter Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1900
  8. Frank Vs. Mangum US Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1915
  9. American Federation of Labor Vs. Swing US Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1941
  10. U.S. 1 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Shelley v. Kraemer
    Search
  11. U.S. 1 (1948) Shelley v. Kraemer
    Search
  12. it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts to enforce them. Corrigan v. Buckley
    Search
  13. Court which in any way have involved the enforcement of such agreements. The first of these was the case of Corrigan v. Buckley
    Search
  14. enforcement of those agreements. The second of the cases involving racial restrictive covenants was Hansberry v. Lee
    Search
  15. This Court has given specific recognition to the same principle. Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  16. by state statute or local ordinance. We do not understand respondents to urge the contrary. In the case of Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  17. In Harmon v. Tyler
    Search
  18. U. S. 68 (1927), a unanimous court, on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  19. occupy property and barred on grounds of race or color is clear not only from the language of the opinion in Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  20. supra, but from this Court's disposition of the case of Richmond v. Deans
    Search
  21. terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such relief was granted, and this Court affirmed, finding the citation of Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  22. supra, and Harmon v. Tyler
    Search
  23. that there has been no action by the State, and the provisions of the Amendment have not been violated. Cf. Corrigan v. Buckley
    Search
  24. in the earliest cases involving the construction of the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Virginia v. Rives
    Search
  25. of the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be found in numerous cases which have been more recently decided. In Twining v. New
    Search
  26. In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill
    Search
  27. whether directed by state statute or taken by a judicial official in the absence of statute. Thus, in Strauder v. West
    Search
  28. as a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill
    Search
  29. supra. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  30. Thus, it has been held that convictions obtained in state courts under the domination of a mob are void. Moore v. Dempsey
    Search
  31. U. S. 86 (1923). And see Frank v. Mangum
    Search
  32. Thus, in American Federation of Labor v. Swing
    Search
  33. In Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  34. of the case, found to be a violation of the Amendment's commands relating to freedom of religion. In Bridges v. California
    Search
  35. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  36. Strauder v. West
    Search
  37. legitimate exercise of the state's police power, but violated the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. Oyama v. California
    Search
  38. Cf. Buchanan v. Warley
    Search
  39. and enforce property interests must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Marsh v. Alabama
    Search
  40. Together with No. 87, McGhee et al. v. Sipes
    Search
  41. Kraemer v. Shelley
    Search
  42. Sipes v. McGhee
    Search
  43. In Oyama v. California
    Search
  44. and Virginia have also declared similar statutes invalid as being in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glover v. Atlanta
    Search
  45. Jackson v. State
    Search
  46. Clinard v. Winston-Salem
    Search
  47. Allen v. Oklahoma
    Search
  48. Liberty Annex Corp. v. Dallas
    Search
  49. Irvine v. Clifton
    Search
  50. United States v. Harris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial