Turner v. City of Memphis
United States Supreme Court
369 U.S. 350 (1962)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Jesse Turner (plaintiff), a Black man, was denied service in the racially segregated main dining room of the restaurant in the Memphis Municipal Airport. The restaurant was privately operated by Dobbs Houses, Inc. (defendant) under a lease from the City of Memphis (defendant). Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Tennessee Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection had issued a regulation requiring restaurants to arrange patrons in a racially segregated manner. Violation of the regulation was a misdemeanor. Turner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in district court seeking an injunction on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Turner’s claim rested jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), and he argued the restaurant and city had acted under color of state law. In its answer, Dobbs House said its lease would be forfeited if it desegregated the restaurant. The city stated that the regulation bound it to object to desegregation as a violation of Tennessee law and of the lease. The district court declined to decide the case, directing Turner to instead file in state court to have it first interpret the segregation-related state statutes. Turner appealed to both the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit and to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court treated Turner’s jurisdictional statement as a petition for writ of certiorari prior to the Sixth Circuit issuing a ruling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
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.

