Irvine v. City Of Clifton Forge
| Decision Date | 14 November 1918 |
| Citation | 97 S.E. 310 |
| Parties | IRVINE. v. CITY OF CLIFTON FORGE. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court of City of Clifton Forge.
Tom Irvine was convicted of violating the segregation ordinance of the City of Clifton Forge, and he brings error. Judgment reversed, and case remanded, with direction to remit fine and dismiss the prosecution.
Chas. Curry, of Staunton, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. J. Wilson, Jr., and John W. Bear, both of Clifton Forge, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court for the city of Clifton Forge, whereby the plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the segregation ordinance of said city and fined $100. On the main constitutional question, the ordinance here involved is not materially different from the segregation ordinance of the city of Richmond, which was upheld as a valid enactment by this court in Hopkins v. City of Richmond, 117 Va. 692, 86 S. E. 139, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1114. Since that case was decided, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that an ordinance of the city of Louisville substantially the same as the one under consideration is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore null and void. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 38 Sup. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed. 149. That case was very fully argued by able counsel, and several cities, including the city of Richmond, Va., were also permitted, as amid curiae, to file briefs in the case.
The opinion of the court fully covers the case at bar. The judgment aforesaid of the circuit court of the city of Clifton Forge must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded to said court, with direction to remit the fine imposed upon the plaintiff in error, and dismiss the prosecution.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelley v. Kraemer Ghee v. Sipes
...v. Oklahoma City, 1936, 175 Okl. 421, 52 P.2d 1054; Liberty Annex Corp. v. Dallas, Tex.Civ.App. 1927, 289 S.W. 1067; Irvine v. Clifton Forge, 1918, 124 Va. 781, 97 S.E. 310. 12 And see United States v. Harris, 1883, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290; United States v. Cruikshank, 1876,......
-
John R. Thompson Co. v. District of Columbia
...of Richmond, 117 Va. 629, 86 S.E. 139 (1915) overruled on constitutional grounds, other than delegability, in Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 97 S.E. 310(1918); Patterson v. Taylor, 51 Fla. 275, 40 So. 493 (1906); Crooms v. Schad, 51 Fla. 168, 40 So. 497 (1906); Mayo v. James,......
-
Taylor v. Northam
...segregation ordinance, as well as the materially identical ordinance of the City of Richmond, was not valid. Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge , 124 Va. 781, 782, 97 S.E. 310 (1918) ; see Buchanan v. Warley , 245 U.S. 60, 82, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917) (applying the Fourteenth Amendment......
-
Perdue v. Ferguson
...Hopkins v. City of Richmond, 117 Va. 692, 710, 86 S.E. 139, 144 (1915), overruled on another point, Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 782, 97 S.E. 310, 310 (1918). Moreover, there is nothing in the petition for an injunction in this case to indicate that enactment or enforcement......
-
Frank S. Alexander, the Housing of America's Families: Control, Exclusion, and Privilege
...Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917); State v. Darnell, 166 N.C. 300, 81 S.E. 338 (1914); Irvine v. City of Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 97 S.E. 310 (1918). 139 Though most zoning by practice, if not by definition, is exclusionary, the phrase "exclusionary zoning" is generally zoning which......