Citation network
Hurd Vs. Hodge
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 24 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Hurd v. HodgeSearch
-
U.S. 24 (1948) Hurd v. HodgeSearch
-
U. S. 26 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. These are companion cases to Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
and McGhee v. SipesSearch
-
courts of the District of Columbia violates the Fifth Amendment has never been adjudicated by this Court. In Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
of the lower court granting enforcement to a restrictive covenant. But as was pointed out in our opinion in Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
See Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
sellers and Negro purchasers of property, guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Buchanan v. WarleySearch
-
Harmon v. TylerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Richmond v. DeansSearch
-
guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioners point out that this Court, in Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
the provisions of the statute under consideration is directed is governmental action. Such was the holding of Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was given specific recognition by this Court in Buchanan v. WarleySearch
-
man is granted the right to acquire property free from interference by discriminatory state legislation. In Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
that, if taken by the courts of a State, would violate the prohibitory provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shelley v. KraemerSearch
-
Together with No. 291, Urciolo et al. v. HodgeSearch
-
has considered cases involving enforcement of racial restrictive agreements on at least eight occasions. Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
Torrey v. WolfesSearch
-
Russell v. WallaceSearch
-
Cornish v. O'DonoghueSearch
-
Grady v. GarlandSearch
-
Hundley v. GorewitzSearch
-
Mays v. BurgessSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 236, 152 F.2d 123. In Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
consideration of the specific issues presented to this Court in these cases. An appeal from the decision in Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
was dismissed by this Court. 271 U. S. 323 . See discussion supra. In Hundley v. GorewitzSearch
-
and dispositive of the issues of the case. Recent expressions of that policy are to be found in Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-DetroitSearch
-
Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
Cf. Talbott v. SilverSearch
-
See Keller v. PotomacSearch
-
See United States v. HutchesonSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Muschany v. UnitedSearch
-
Tool Co. v. NorrisSearch
-
Sprott v. UnitedSearch
-
Oscanyan v. ArmsSearch
-
Burt v. UnionSearch
-
U. S. 99 . And see Beasley v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. Gandolfo v. HartmanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hurd v. HodgeSearch
-
Court. In Corrigan v. BuckleySearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Buchanan v. WarleySearch
-
Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial