Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Sullivan Et Al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., Et Al.

• 1969 • 396 U.S. 229 • Burger Court
In the Sullivan et al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., et al., 1969 case, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a white property owner could not be penalized for selling his property to an African American family in violation of a neighborhood association's racially discriminatory policies. The plaintiff, Paul Sullivan had been expelled from Little Hunting Park Inc., after he attempted to transfer shares associated with one of his properties to an African-American man who was renting it. The court...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1969
Docket: 33
396 U.S. 229
90 S. Ct. 400
24 L. Ed. 2d 386
1969 U.S. LEXIS 8
Argued: Oct 13, 1969

Sullivan Et Al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the Sullivan et al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., et al., 1969 case, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a white property owner could not be penalized for selling his property to an African American family in violation of a neighborhood association's racially discriminatory policies. The plaintiff, Paul Sullivan had been expelled from Little Hunting Park Inc., after he attempted to transfer shares associated with one of his properties to an African-American man who was renting it. The court held that this expulsion violated both federal law and public policy against racial discrimination in housing under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1982 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C). This decision reaffirmed that private organizations cannot enforce rules or restrictions which infringe upon individual civil rights protected by federal law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Sullivan et al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to extend federal civil rights laws to private property transactions was a significant overreach of judicial power. He contended that such an expansion of these laws should be left up to Congress rather than decided by the courts. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on property rights and freedom of association if private entities were forced to comply with public accommodation standards under civil rights law. In his view, this case did not involve state action or interstate commerce – two areas where federal intervention would be justified – but instead involved purely private conduct which should remain outside the scope of federal regulation.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: Dec 15, 1969
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms