North Dakota Fair Housing Council v. Peterson
Supreme Court of North Dakota
625 N.W.2d 551 (2001)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Before they married, Robert and Patricia Kippen (plaintiffs) sought to rent property from David and Mary Peterson (defendants). The Petersons refused to rent to the Kippens because they planned to cohabit while being unmarried. Since its statehood, North Dakota has declared it unlawful for unmarried persons to openly cohabit as though they were married. The Kippens, along with the North Dakota Fair Housing Council (Council) (plaintiff), sued the Petersons for violating the North Dakota Human Rights Act (HRA), which prohibits discrimination in housing on account of a person’s “status with respect to marriage,” among other categories. The trial court dismissed the Council’s claim for lack of standing and awarded summary judgment to the Petersons with respect to the Kippens’ suit. The Kippens and the Council appealed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota considered the Kippens’ appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sandstrom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.