Hansberry v. Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hansberry v. Lee
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued October 25, 1940
Decided November 12, 1940
Full case nameHansberry, et al. v. Lee, et al.
Citations311 U.S. 32 (more)
61 S. Ct. 115; 85 L. Ed. 22
Res judicata will not preclude a plaintiff who was not a part of a prior class action on the same matter.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Case opinions
ConcurrenceMcReynolds, joined by Roberts

Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that res judicata may not bind a subsequent litigant who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class. The plaintiff in the present case argued that Carl Augustus Hansberry (father of Lorraine Hansberry) could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit. The defendant's case was successfully argued by civil rights attorney Earl B. Dickerson.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that since some of the neighborhood landowners (46%) comprising the class of the prior lawsuit did not support the restrictive covenant, the previous decision that the covenant was valid could not apply to all members of that class. In other words, it was erroneous to allow the 54% of neighborhood landowners who had supported the restrictive covenant to represent the interests of the 46% who were against it. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the restrictive covenant could be contested in court again, even though some of the parties involved may have been included in the prior class of neighborhood landowner.

Later, the type of real property restriction, racially restrictive covenants, was held by Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), to be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and were therefore legally unenforceable[1] state action, as the private plaintiffs seeking to enforce such a covenant were invoking the machinery of the state.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "1948: Shelley v. Kraemer". The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. Retrieved 2020-09-19.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]