From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Shelley v. Kraemer
United States Supreme Court
334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Facts
In 1911, thirty property owners on a street in St. Louis, Missouri signed and recorded a restrictive covenant, which provided that no races other than Caucasians were welcome as tenants on the property for the next fifty years. In 1945, the Shelleys (defendants), a black family, bought a house on one of the restricted parcels of land without knowledge of the restrictive covenant. The Kraemers and other white property owners (plaintiffs) in the subdivision brought suit in circuit court to enforce the covenant, seeking to enjoin the Shelleys from taking possession and divest them of title to the property. The circuit court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the ground that the restrictive covenant was incomplete, because not all property owners in the subdivision had signed. The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, reversed and directed the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs, concluding that the covenant was valid and enforcement was constitutional. The case was consolidated with a substantially similar case from Michigan before the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state's courts from enforcing racially restrictive covenants.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vinson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
