Talk:Shelley v. Kraemer

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil Rights Movement Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Shelley v. Kraemer:

No to-do list assigned.

WikiProject Civil Rights Movement to do list:

Edit the tasks list

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : All redlinked articles listed at User:Mitchumch/Movement templates#Civil Rights Movement need to be created.
Durham movement (North Carolina)
Greensboro movement (North Carolina) (currently a redirect)
Henry Hezekiah Dee (currently a redirect)
Delano Herman Middleton (currently a redirect)
Charles Eddie Moore (currently a redirect)
Henry Ezekial Smith (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Rosa Parks, and upgrade to GA status
Black Arts Movement
Collaborate : Tagging all relevant articles with project template.
Expand : And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
Medgar Evers
The Children (Halberstam)
Cambridge movement (civil rights)
Browder v. Gayle
Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957
Photo : Milton Galamison • J. Charles Jones • Gloria Richardson • Richard Durham • Freedom Riders • Freedom Summer • March Against Fear • Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1958) • Youth March for Integrated Schools (1959) • Birmingham riot of 1963 • 16th Street Baptist Church bombing (image of bombing) • Bloody Tuesday (1964) • Biloxi wade-ins (image of wade-ins) • Tallahassee bus boycott • Tent City (Tennessee) • Memphis sanitation strike (image of actual strike) • Americus movement • Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple bombing • Baton Rouge bus boycott • Orangeburg massacre • Mansfield school desegregation incident • Bloody Monday (Danville)

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Did The Shelley's get to live in there house. Did this case go back to the state court.

Counsel on the case[edit]

Dropped this sentence:

The case against the covenants was argued by noted civil rights lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston.

That name does not appear in the identification of counsel in the Court's opinion.

Added the fact that George L. Vaughn was attorney for J.D. Shelley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoupleBucks (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the court[edit]

Added "Missouri" to clarify that the state court was the one which upheld the covenant.

Truthful?[edit]

If this decision described in this article is actually true, then howcome the news media (even very recently) reports about public figures who own real estate that has deed restrictions prohibiting the sale of that land to members of certain racial and/or religious groups? Either this decision discussed in this article is not true or the news reports about the deed restrictions are not true. Which is it then? 69.39.172.90 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These restrictive covenants exist because they were added to a deed or group of deeds and "run with the land." It takes asignificant amount of legal work and thus money to remove them. Since they are not legally enforceable in any court (this is the key holding of the case) and thus have no legal significance, no one is willing to spend the money to remove them. Today they exist to remind everyone what type of society existed in the early to mid 20th century in the U.S. Perhaps this info needs to be added to the article as a 'subsequent development.'Deanlaw (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Judicial action is state action"[edit]

This clearly is not true in all circumstances. Compare Evans v. Newton, Shelley v. Kraemer, and Burton v. Wilmington with Moose Lodge v. Irvis and Flagg Brothers v. Brooks. Amcfreely 04:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unenforceable"[edit]

The article currently holds:

"The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was unenforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely private agreement between its original parties."

Should "unenforceable" be "enforceable"? It seems incorrect in the context, but I don't know the case (came here from the citation of the case in SFFA v. Harvard). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. The Missouri decision doesn't seem to be cited either. Will come back with more research and correct it either way. Fluxjupyter (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read original text here https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3555126/kraemer-v-shelley/? (edited to use better source) Fluxjupyter (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]