Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
610 F.2d 1032 (1979)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Paul Hanley was a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative-housing corporation called 12 Lofts Realty, Inc. (corporation) (defendant). Because Hanley owned stock in the corporation, he lived in a residential building owned by the corporation. Hanley agreed to sell a portion of his stock to a Black man named Bennett Robinson (plaintiff), thereby entitling Robinson to live in the building. The agreement was made conditional on the corporation’s approval of an application from Robinson. When Robinson submitted his application, the corporation established a screening policy requiring each applicant to provide a credit report, a résumé, and a recommendation from a former landlord. Robinson was required to comply with the policy. But the policy was not followed with respect to Donald Kuspit, a White applicant. Further, although Robinson’s credit report, résumé, and recommendation were deemed satisfactory, the corporation increased the minimum number of stockholder votes needed to approve an application. The corporation denied Robinson’s application after his application failed to receive the necessary votes. Subsequently, Robinson filed suit, contending that the corporation violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by denying him housing due to his race. Robinson sought an injunction requiring the corporation to approve his application. The district court denied injunctive relief. Robinson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kearse, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 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.