Blow v. North Carolina
| Decision Date | 01 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 387,387 |
| Citation | 13 L.Ed.2d 603,379 U.S. 684,85 S.Ct. 635 |
| Parties | Robert BLOW et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit III, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Charles L. Black, Jr., Samuel S. Mitchell and Floyd B. McKissick, for petitioners.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen. of North Carolina, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioners, two Negroes, approached the Plantation Restaurant in the company of 35 to 40 other Negroes. This restaurant served whites only and carried a sign to that offect on its front door. Pursuant to this policy the owner of the restaurant locked the door against the Negroes, though from time to time he would open the door to admit white customers and relock it after they had entered. The restaurant was some 60 feet from the highway, the property between the restaurant and the highway being owned by the restaurant proprietor. The Negroes waited outside the door, some on a shrubbery box six or eight feet away, others up to 15 feet distant. The owner asked the Negroes to leave; but they continued to wait quietly outside until they were arrested. For this conduct petitioners were indicted and convicted for violation of § 14—134 of the North Carolina General Statutes, making it an offense to 'go or enter upon the lands of another, without a license therefor' and 'after being forbidden to do so.' The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed petitioners' convictions on March 18, 1964. 261 N.C. 463, 135 S.E.2d 14; 261 N.C. 467, 135 S.E.2d 17.
The Plantation Restaurant is situated on Interstate Highway 301 in the town of Enfield, North Carolina. Adjoining the restaurant and owned by the same person is the Enfield Motel. The restaurant's menu and other advertising are posted in the rooms of this motel. The Plantation Restaurant and Enfield Motel are advertised on billboards for some miles up and down Highway 301. They are further advertised on the radio and in the newspapers.
Since these facts make it clear that the Plantation Restaurant 'serves or offers to serve interstate travelers,' it must be held that the restaurant is a 'place of public accommodation' within the meaning of §§ 201(b)(2) and (c)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051
...386 (1969); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 305—308, 89 S.Ct. 1697, 1701—1703, 23 L.Ed.2d 318 (1969); Blow v. North Carolina, 379 U.S. 684, 685—686, 85 S.Ct. 635, 636, 13 L.Ed.2d 603 (1965); Hamm v. Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306, 307—308, 85 S.Ct. 384, 387—388, 13 L.Ed.2d 300 (1964); Heart of Atlan......
-
People v. Charles
...final judgments has been given judicial application to cases pending on direct review. (See, e.g., Blow v. North Carolina (1965) 379 U.S. 684, 85 S.Ct. 635, 13 L.Ed.2d 603 (per curiam); Hamm v. City of Rock Hill (1964) 379 U.S. 306, 85 S.Ct. 384, 13 L.Ed.2d 300; Bell v. State of Maryland (1......
-
Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
...the penalty. (See, e.g., Hamm v. City of Rock Hill (1964) 379 U.S. 306, 85 S.Ct. 384, 13 L.Ed.2d 300, and Blow v. North Carolina (1965) 379 U.S. 684, 85 S.Ct. 635, 13 L.Ed.2d 603.) Even if the Legislature retains the underlying duty but simply abolishes or mitigates the penalty fixed for it......
-
Green v. Miss U.S., LLC
...is just as apparent in the context of public accommodations as it is in employment. See, e.g., Blow v. North Carolina, 379 U.S. 684, 684–85, 85 S.Ct. 635, 13 L.Ed.2d 603 (1965) (per curiam) (applying the federal public accommodations statute to the Plantation Restaurant, a diner that "serve......