Talk:Shelley v. Kraemer

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

Counsel on the case
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)

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

Truthful?
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)

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)

"Judicial action is state action"
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)

"Unenforceable"
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)