Roberts v. City of Boston

59 Mass. 198 (1850)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Roberts v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
59 Mass. 198 (1850)

Facts

Under a Massachusetts statute, a school committee chosen by the residents of each Massachusetts town or city had general superintendence powers over the town’s or city’s schools, including the organization of schools and qualifications for admission. In the late 1840s, the city of Boston, Massachusetts (Boston) (defendant) had roughly 160 primary schools divided into 21 districts. Under regulations passed by Boston’s general primary-school committee, no student could be admitted into a primary school without an admission ticket from a member of the primary-school committee for the district in which the school was located. The regulations also provided that a student of suitable age and qualifications was entitled to attend the school nearest to the student’s residence unless special provision had been made for the student. Sarah Roberts (plaintiff) was a five-year-old Black child who lived with her father in Boston’s sixth primary school district. In April 1847, Roberts applied to a member of the district’s primary-school committee for an admission ticket to the primary school closest to Roberts’s residence. The school-committee member refused Roberts’s application and said that Roberts could attend one of Boston’s two primary schools established exclusively for Black children. The school committee had concluded that the separate schools were best adapted to promote the instruction of Black children. The teachers at the schools were compensated the same and had the same qualifications as teachers in other Boston public schools. However, the schools were much further from Roberts’s residence. Roberts appealed to the district’s primary-school and Boston’s general primary-school committees, but both bodies rejected Roberts’s appeal. Roberts sued Boston under a Massachusetts law providing that any child unlawfully excluded from public-school instruction could recover damages from the city where the school was located.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership