The right to exclude / limitations and public accommodations law Flashcards
Civil rights act of 1964 title II
42 U S C § 2000a, 2000a–6
a) Equal access. All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments. Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title [42 USCS §§ 2000a–2000a-6] if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
Civil rights act of 12866 42 USC §§ 1981- Equal rights under law
(a) Statement of equal rights. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined. For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment. The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
§1982 Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the US shall have the right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
USton v Resorts International Hotel Inc
Right to exclude Public Accommodation Law
Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. is a notable case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1982. Here are the key points:
Background: Kenneth Uston, a professional blackjack player known for his card counting strategy, was excluded from the blackjack tables at Resorts International Hotel’s casino in Atlantic City12.
Legal Issue: The main question was whether the casino had the right to exclude Uston solely because of his card counting strategy12.
Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Uston, stating that the casino could not exclude him unless there was a specific regulation from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission allowing such exclusion13. The court emphasized that property owners who open their premises to the public must provide reasonable access and cannot exclude individuals arbitrarily23.
This case is significant because it established that casinos cannot exclude patrons without a valid reason, particularly when it comes to strategies like card counting that do not disrupt the casino’s operations.
McClure mgmt, llc v Taylor
Right to Exclude Public Accommodation Law
McClure Management, LLC v. Taylor is a significant case decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in 2020. Here are the key points:
Background: Erik Taylor and James Turner, Black professionals in the oil-and-gas industry, sought long-term accommodation at the McClure Hotel in West Virginia. They were denied these accommodations and alleged racial discrimination12.
Legal Issue: The case centered on whether the hotel, managed by McClure Management, LLC, violated the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA) by refusing long-term accommodation to Taylor and Turner based on their race12.
Ruling: The jury found in favor of Taylor and Turner, awarding each $475,000. The defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial were denied by the circuit court, and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals12.
This case underscores the importance of anti-discrimination laws in ensuring equal access to public accommodation
Tresspass
unprivileged
intentional
entry
on property possessed by another
UNLESS Neccessity
Neccessity
stopping a crime
to prevent more harm for happening
Intrusion
occurs as soon as non owner enters another property
mistake onto others’ land
entry onto anothers land does not relieve it being a mistake it is still tresspass.
Ask yourself these questions:
- does the property owner have the right to exclude
- whether or not a person is tresspassing?
- If so was it by necessity?
State v Shack
Right to exclude Trespass
State v. Shack is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1971. Here are the key points:
Background: The case involved two defendants, Peter K. Shack and Frank Tejeras, who entered private property to provide legal and medical assistance to migrant farmworkers. The property owner, Tedesco, asked them to leave, but they refused and were charged with trespassing12.
Legal Issue: The main question was whether the property owner could exclude individuals who were providing essential services to the farmworkers23.
Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the property owner’s rights do not extend to denying access to individuals providing government aid or essential services to those living on the property12. The court emphasized that the well-being of the workers was paramount and that property rights are not absolute23.
This case is significant because it established that property owners cannot interfere with the delivery of essential services to individuals on their property, highlighting the balance between property rights and human rights.
Commonwealth v Magadini
Right to Exclude Tresspass
This case is about Necessity ***
Commonwealth v. Magadini is a significant case decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2016. Here are the key points:
Background: David Magadini, a homeless man, was convicted of seven counts of criminal trespass for entering privately-owned buildings in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, during extreme cold weather. He argued that his actions were necessary to avoid the dangers of exposure to the elements12.
Legal Issue: The main question was whether Magadini could use the defense of necessity, which justifies illegal actions taken to prevent a greater harm, in this case, the harm of exposure to extreme cold12.
Ruling: The court vacated six of the seven convictions, ruling that the trial judge erred in denying Magadini’s request for a jury instruction on the necessity defense for the incidents from February to April 2014. The court found that Magadini presented sufficient evidence to warrant this instruction, given the clear and imminent danger he faced due to the cold and the lack of lawful alternatives for shelter12. However, the court upheld the conviction for the June 2014 incident, as the necessity defense was not applicable12.
This case highlights the court’s recognition of the harsh realities faced by homeless individuals and the application of the necessity defense in such contexts.
Martin v City of Boise
Right to exclude Trepass
Martin v. City of Boise is a significant case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2018. Here are the key points:
Background: The case involved six homeless individuals who challenged Boise’s anti-camping ordinances, which prohibited sleeping in public spaces12.
Legal Issue: The main question was whether enforcing these ordinances against homeless individuals when no alternative shelter was available violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment13.
Ruling: The court ruled that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough shelter beds available for their homeless population12. This decision was based on the principle that punishing individuals for sleeping in public when they have no other option is unconstitutional13.
This case has had a significant impact on how cities address homelessness and enforce public camping laws.
Consent types
express - verbal
implied- actions or circumstance acts as if they given permission
types of property
public- home owner
private- mall or store
