Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ex Parte LAWS et al.
This case differs from the other racial restriction cases this day decided (Cumings v. Hokr, Cal.Sup., 193 P.2d 742; Cassell v. Hickerson, Cal.Sup., 193 P.2d 743; Davis v. Carter, Cal.Sup., 193 P.2d 744) in that here petitioners by final judgment were enjoined from using or occupying their covenant restricted land, they refused to obey the order of the court, they were adjudged in contempt and committed for such disobedience and now seek release on habeas corpus.
Since it is unquestionable that commitment for contempt for refusing to obey the order of the court to vacate the restricted property amounts to ‘state action’ to enforce the restrictions, within the purview of the decisions in Shelley v. Kraemer (McGhee v. Sipes), 68 S.Ct. 836, the petitioners are entitled to their release.
Petitioners are discharged.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Cr. 4698.
Decided: May 18, 1948
Court: Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)