In re Laws

California Supreme Court

In re Laws

31 Cal. 2d 846

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1948

DocketCrim. No. 4698

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Cal. 2d 846 (In re Laws) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Laws, 31 Cal. 2d 846 (Cal. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This case differs from the other racial restriction cases this day decided (Cumings v. Hokr, ante, p. 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson, post, p. 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter, post, p. 870 [193 P.2d 744]) in that here petitioners by final judgment were enjoined from using or occupying their covenant restricted land, they refused to obey the order of the court, they were adjudged in contempt and committed for such disobedience and now seek release on habeas corpus.

Since it is unquestionable that commitment for contempt for refusing to obey the order of the court to vacate the restricted property amounts to “state action” to enforce the restrictions, within the purview of the decisions in 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]) the petitioners are entitled to their release.

Petitioners are discharged.

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

THE COURT.

This case differs from the other racial restriction cases this day decided (Cumings v. Hokr, ante, p. 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson, post, p. 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter, post, p. 870 [193 P.2d 744]) in that here petitioners by final judgment were enjoined from using or occupying their covenant restricted land, they refused to obey the order of the court, they were adjudged in contempt and committed for such disobedience and now seek release on habeas corpus.

Since it is unquestionable that commitment for contempt for refusing to obey the order of the court to vacate the restricted property amounts to “state action” to enforce the restrictions, within the purview of the decisions in 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]) the petitioners are entitled to their release.

Petitioners are discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Cal. 2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-laws-cal-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack