Cavett v. Butler

32 Cal. 2d 894
California Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1948·No. L. A. No. 20255·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

The above-entitled cases, like Cumings v. Hokr (1948), 31 Cal.2d 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson (1948), 31 Cal.2d 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter (1948), 31 Cal.2d 870 [193 P.2d 744]; In re Laws (1948), 31 Cal.2d 846 [193 P.2d 744]; Clayton v. Wilkins, post, p. 895 [197 P.2d 162]; and Morin v. Crane, post, p. 896 [197 P.2d 162], 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. In each of the instant cases the trial court enjoined occupancy of the respectively concerned lots by non-Caucasians.

Upon the authority of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. -] (see also Hurd v. Hodge (1948), 334 U.S. 24 [68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. -]), holding that such restrictions cannot be enforced through court action, the judgment of the trial court enforcing the restrictions is in each case reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cavett v. Butler, 32 Cal. 2d 894 (Cal. 1948).

32 Cal. 2d 894 (Cavett v. Butler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barrows v. Jackson
247 P.2d 99 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)