Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q5650974> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 32 of
32
with 100 triples per page.
- Q5650974 subject Q6996306.
- Q5650974 subject Q6996813.
- Q5650974 subject Q6996830.
- Q5650974 subject Q6996870.
- Q5650974 subject Q6998672.
- Q5650974 abstract "Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that res judicata may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in a Chicago neighborhood. The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class. The defense in the present case argued that Hansberry could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit.The US Supreme Court disagreed and held that since some of the neighborhood landowners (46%) comprising the class of the prior lawsuit did not support the restrictive covenant, the previous decision that the covenant was valid could not apply to all members of that class. In other words, it was erroneous to allow the 54% of neighborhood landowners who had supported the restrictive covenant to represent the interests of the 46% who were against it. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the restrictive covenant could be contested in court again, even though some of the parties involved may have been included in the prior class of neighborhood landowner.Later, the type of real property restriction, racially restrictive covenants, was held by Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), to be state action because the plaintiffs seeking to enforce such a covenant were invoking the machinery of the state.".
- Q5650974 wikiPageExternalLink DavisVol20No3_Kamp.pdf.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q1062245.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q206937.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q300532.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6335929.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6602342.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q697327.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996813.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996830.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996870.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998672.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q7493848.
- Q5650974 wikiPageWikiLink Q7603645.
- Q5650974 fullname "Hansberry, et al. v. Lee, et al.".
- Q5650974 type Case.
- Q5650974 type LegalCase.
- Q5650974 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q5650974 type UnitOfWork.
- Q5650974 type Situation.
- Q5650974 type Thing.
- Q5650974 type Q2334719.
- Q5650974 comment "Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that res judicata may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in a Chicago neighborhood.".
- Q5650974 label "Hansberry v. Lee".
- Q5650974 name "Hansberry, et al. v. Lee, et al.".