Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held unanimously that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract. The ruling of the Kentucky Court of Appeals was thus reversed.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - Buchanan v. Warley (en)
- Buchanan contro Warley (it)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Buchanan contro Warley, è un caso giudiziario del 1917 affrontato dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti e che riguardava la segregazione razziale in alcune aree residenziali. La Corte sentenziò che un'ordinanza cittadina di Louisville, in Kentucky, che proibiva la vendita di beni immobili agli afroamericani violasse il 14° Emendamento, che proteggeva la libertà di contratto. La decisione sovvertì la sentenza della Kentucky Court of Appeals. A differenza di altre sentenze della corte che avevano avuto a che fare con la segregazione nelle zone residenziali (fenomeno in inglese detto zoning), con questo caso per la prima volta la Corte stabilì che il solo fattore della razza non era sufficiente a giustificare una tale scelta (da ritenersi, dunque, anticostituzionale). (it)
- Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held unanimously that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract. The ruling of the Kentucky Court of Appeals was thus reversed. (en)
|
| foaf:name
| - (en)
- Buchanan v. Warley (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| JoinMajority
| |
| LawsApplied
| |
| ParallelCitations
| |
| USPage
| |
| USVol
| |
| ArgueYear
| |
| case
| |
| courtlistener
| |
| DecideDate
| |
| DecideYear
| |
| findlaw
| |
| fullname
| |
| Holding
| - Bans on the sale of real estate to black people violate freedom of contract as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed. (en)
|
| justia
| |
| Litigants
| |
| majority
| |
| loc
| |
| has abstract
| - Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held unanimously that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract. The ruling of the Kentucky Court of Appeals was thus reversed. Prior state court rulings had overturned racial zoning ordinances on grounds of the "takings clause" because of their failures to grandfather land that had been owned prior to enactment. The Court, in Buchanan, ruled that the motive for the Louisville ordinance, separation of races for purported reasons, was an inappropriate exercise of police power, and its insufficient purpose also made it unconstitutional. (en)
- Buchanan contro Warley, è un caso giudiziario del 1917 affrontato dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti e che riguardava la segregazione razziale in alcune aree residenziali. La Corte sentenziò che un'ordinanza cittadina di Louisville, in Kentucky, che proibiva la vendita di beni immobili agli afroamericani violasse il 14° Emendamento, che proteggeva la libertà di contratto. La decisione sovvertì la sentenza della Kentucky Court of Appeals. A differenza di altre sentenze della corte che avevano avuto a che fare con la segregazione nelle zone residenziali (fenomeno in inglese detto zoning), con questo caso per la prima volta la Corte stabilì che il solo fattore della razza non era sufficiente a giustificare una tale scelta (da ritenersi, dunque, anticostituzionale). (it)
|
| ArgueDateA
| |
| ArgueDateB
| |
| ReargueDate
| |
| ReargueYear
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)