Cassell v. Hickerson
Opinion
31 Cal.2d 869 (1948)
FLORENCE H. CASSELL et al., Respondents,
v.
H. G. HICKERSON et al., Appellants.
L. A. No. 19685.
Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
May 18, 1948.
Lech T. Niemo and Lester V. Peterman for Appellants.
Morris E. Cohn, Bartley Crum, Hugh E. Macbeth, Jr., Edward Mosk, Isaac Pacht, Clore Warne, Martha Stewart Yerkes, Albrecht Marburg Yerkes, and D. O. McGovney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants.
Feinfeld & Feinfeld, Walter S. McEachern and McEachern & Ritchie for Respondents.
Memorandum THE COURT.
These cases, like Cumings v. Hokr, ante, p. 844 [ 193 P.2d 742 ], Davis v. Carter, post, p. 870 [ 193 P.2d 744 ], and In re Laws, ante, p. 846 [ 193 P.2d 744 ], involve the legality and enforceability of privately imposed restrictions against occupation of certain lots of land by persons other than those of the Caucasian race. Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes, May 3, 1948, 334 U.S. 1 [ 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. ___ ], 16 Law Week 4426 (see also Hurd v. Hodge, May 3, 1948, 334 U.S. 24 [ 68 S.Ct. 847 , 92 L.Ed. ___ ]; 16 Law Week 4432), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court enforcing the restrictions is in each case reversed. *870
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.