Hamilton v. Miller
| Decision Date | 01 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1216.,72-1216. |
| Citation | 477 F.2d 908 |
| Parties | Melvin R. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emery L. MILLER and Mary Katherine Miller, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John M. Daly, Gillette, Wyo. (George L. Arnold, Laramie, Wyo., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
John E. Stanfield, of Smith, Stanfield & Mendicino, Laramie, Wyo., for defendants-appellees.
Nathaniel R. Jones, Charles R. Carter, and James I. Meyerson, New York City, on the brief for NAACP, amicus curiae.
Sanford Jay Rosen, New York City, and David Minge, Laramie, Wyo., on the brief for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and JONES* and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal taken by the plaintiff Hamilton follows the entry of an adverse judgment in the District of Wyoming after trial to the court sitting without a jury. Hamilton's complaint against the Millers alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, all arising from the failure of the Millers to rent to Hamilton an apartment located in Laramie, Wyoming. The appellate issues are limited to a consideration of whether the trial court erred in finding no actionable discrimination and to specific attacks upon three of the trial court's findings as being clearly erroneous.
Hamilton is a black student at the University of Wyoming. According to his testimony and that of others, he first tried to see the apartment, listed as for rent in the local newspaper, on May 11, 1971. He, accompanied by his fiancee, was told by Mrs. Miller that the apartment had already been rented. Hamilton then returned to the University campus and consulted with the dean of students and with a white law student, Larry Clapp, who also served as a student government housing official. Hamilton sought both advice and assistance in his concern as to whether his civil rights had been abused.
The following day Larry Clapp tried to rent from the Millers and was tentatively offered an apartment. Hamilton, soon thereafter, was again told by defendant Miller that no apartment was available. He informed Miller that Clapp did not want the apartment. A similar incident occurred one week later. A white University official was twice shown a Miller apartment as being available and the plaintiff was informed that no apartment was available.1
We have no hesitancy in stating that Hamilton established a strong prima facie case showing violations of the subject statutes. The trial court found and determined, however, that defendant's evidence was sufficient to refute the prima facie case and concluded that on the total record the plaintiff had not succeeded in supporting his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.2
Mrs. Miller testified that when Hamilton and his fiancee first inquired about the apartment in May they indicated their interests to be limited to obtaining an apartment when the University fall term began in September. Mrs. Miller told them to return in August to see if there was then a vacancy. The trial court fully credited Mrs. Miller's testimony and in so doing entered two of the findings which are now asserted to be clearly erroneous. We cannot upset such findings as a matter of law.
Concerning the two following incidents when Hamilton was told there was no apartment available defense witnesses testified that Hamilton was extremely aggressive, demanding that the apartment be rented to him. Miller testified that plaintiff's attitude and mannerisms led him to believe that Hamilton would be a troublesome tenant and that was the sole reason for his rejection. Miller stated, in effect, that he did not wish to personalize the rejection but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marr v. Rife
...motivation by clear and convincing evidence. In opposing appellants' argument, appellees rely in part on the case of Hamilton v. Miller, 477 F.2d 908 (10th Cir. 1973), involving the Fair Housing Act. The Court there 'We are urged to hold that the defendant should have the burden of establis......
-
U.S. v. Lorantffy Care Center
... ... without this means of gathering evidence" and that "the evidence provided by testers is frequently valuable, if not indispensable ... " Hamilton v. Miller, ... Page 1045 ... 477 F.2d 908, 910 n. 1 (10th Cir.1973); Richardson v. Howard, 712 F.2d 319, 321 (7th Cir.1983). While conceding ... ...
-
Hughes v. Dyer
...of law. There is not a scintilla of evidence in this record that plaintiffs were hunting a lawsuit rather than a house. Hamilton v. Miller, 477 F.2d 908 (10 Cir. 1973), a case cited and relied upon by defendant in another connection, properly pointed out in footnote 1 on page 910 that simil......
-
Apple Corps Ltd. v. International Collectors Soc.
...Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1526 (7th Cir.1990); Wharton v. Knefel, 562 F.2d 550, 554 n. 18 (8th Cir.1977); Hamilton v. Miller, 477 F.2d 908, 909 n. 1 (10th Cir.1973). Plaintiffs could only determine whether Defendants were complying with the Consent Order by calling ICS directly an......
-
Standing to Sue Under Title Iii of the Ada
...under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 62. 455 U.S. 363 (1982). 63. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d). 64. Havens, supra, note 62 at 374; see also Hamilton v. Miller, 477 F.2d 908, 909 n.1 (10th Cir. 1973) actions intended to found a law suit are not favored they at times must be tolerated. . . . It would be difficult......