Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge

97 S.E. 310, 124 Va. 781, 1918 Va. LEXIS 81
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedNovember 14, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 310 (Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge, 97 S.E. 310, 124 Va. 781, 1918 Va. LEXIS 81 (Va. 1918).

Opinion

Burks, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

[782]*782This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the city of Clifton Forge, whereby the plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the segregation ordinance of said city, and fined one hundred dollars. On the main constitutional question, the ordinance here involved is not materially different from the segregation ordinance of the city of Richmond, which was upheld as a valid enactment by this court in Hopkins v. City of Richmond, 117 Va. 692, 86 S. E. 139, Ann. Cas. 1917-D, 1114. Since that case was decided, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that an ordinance of the city of Louisville, substantially the same as the one under consideration, is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of'the United States, and is therefore null and void. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 38 Sup. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed. 149. That case was very fully argued by able counsel, and several cities, including the city of Richmond, Va., were also permitted, as amici curiae, to file briefs in the case. The opinion of the court fully covers the case at bar. The judgment aforesaid of the Circuit Court of the city of Clifton Forge must, therefore, be reversed, and the case remanded to said court, with direction to remit the fine imposed upon the plaintiff in error and dismiss the prosecution.

Reversed.

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

Related

Taylor v. Northam
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2021
Perdue v. Ferguson
350 S.E.2d 555 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Armstrong v. County of Henrico
182 S.E.2d 35 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1971)
Gordon v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County
153 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1967)
City of Birmingham v. Monk
185 F.2d 859 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Monk v. City of Birmingham
87 F. Supp. 538 (N.D. Alabama, 1949)
Shelley v. Kraemer
334 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Allen v. Oklahoma City
1935 OK 1143 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
City of Richmond v. Deans
37 F.2d 712 (Fourth Circuit, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 310, 124 Va. 781, 1918 Va. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irvine-v-city-of-clifton-forge-va-1918.