According to legal scholars, not all the precedents cited for state and municipal cases were valid because only a small percentage involved statutes supporting segregation, as opposed to unofficial policies.
Read more: Plessy v. Ferguson - Significance, "separate But Equal", Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/13343/Plessy-v-Ferguson.html#ixzz0pSXtfKqL
Construing 14th Amendment
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 US 36 (1872)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)
Segregation in Education (State cases, only)
Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. (1 Cush.) 198 (1850)
State v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 198 (1871)
Lehew v. Brummell, 15 S.W. Rep. 765 (1891)
Ward v. Flood, 48 California 36 (1874)
Bertonneau v. School Directors, 3 Woods 177 (1878)
King v. Gallagher, 93 N.Y. 438 (1883)
Cory v. Carter, 48 Indiana 327 (1874)
Dawson v. Lee, 83 Kentucky 49 (1885)
Outlawed Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303 (1879)
Virginia v. Rives, 100 US 313 (1880)
Neal v. Delaware, 103 US 370 (1880)
Bush v. Kentucky, 107 US 110 (1883)
Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 US 565 (1896)
Outlawed Segregated Interstate Transportation Under ICC
Railroad Co. v. Brown, 84 US 445 (1873)
Hall v. De Cuir, 95 US 48 (1877)
Upheld Segregated Intrastate Transportation
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway v. Mississippi, 133 US 487 (1890)
West Chester & Philadelphia Railroad v. Miles, 55 Penn. St. 209 (1867)
Day v. Owen, 5 Michigan 520 (1858)
Chicago & c. Railway v. Williams, 5 Illinois 185
Chesapeake & c. Railroad v. Wells, 85 Tennessee 613
Memphis & c. Railroad v. Benson, 85 Tennessee 627
The Sue, 22 Fed.Rep. 843
Logwood v. Memphis & c. Railroad, 23 Fed.Rep. 318
McGuinn v. Forbes, 37 Fed.Rep. 639
People v. King, 18 N.E. Rep. 245
Houck v. South Pacific Railway, 38 Fed.Rep. 226
Heard v. Georgia Railroad Company, 3 Int. Comm. Com'n 111; SC 1 428
Overturned Arbitrary Use of Power to Discriminate, Municipal Code
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886)
Overturned Arbitrary Use of Police Powers to Discriminate, State Statutes
Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 US 465 (1877)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Kent, 161 US 677 (1898)
Duggett v. Hudson, 43 Ohio St. 548
Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 48
State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wisconsin 71
Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 66
Hulseman v. Rems, 41 Penn St. 396
Orman v. Riley, 1 California 48
Categorization by Race (State cases, only)
State v. Chaver, 5 Jones [N.C.] 1
Gray v. State, 4 Ohio 354
Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665
People v. Dean, 4 Michigan 406
Jones v. Commonwealth, 80 Virginia 538
State v. Gibson, 36 Indiana 389 (1871)
Case Citation:
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)
Read more: Plessy v. Ferguson - Significance, "separate But Equal", Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/13343/Plessy-v-Ferguson.html#ixzz0pSXtfKqL
The 1954 Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Educationdeclared that state laws which mandate separate schools for white students and blacks students unconstitutional. This ruling overturned the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson,which allowed such segregation. On a broader scale, this case was pivotal in initiating nation-wide desegregation of schools, as well as launching the Civil Rights Movement.
The decision said that it was alright to segregate as long as there were equal accommodations and facilities for all the races. In other words, "separate but equal".
Racial segregation throughout America (APEX).
Seperate but equal
Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson
yes it did
Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)No. Plessy v. Ferguson was a US Supreme Court case that legally sanctioned racial segregation.
This is from the Supreme Court case Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Plessy vs Ferguson was the court case that supported Jim Crow laws stating that "seperate but equal" was constitutional.
That would be the Supreme Court Case Plessy vs. Furgeson
Plessy v. Ferguson.
As a result of Plessy v. Ferguson, black and white southerners were legally segregated.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)Plessy v. Ferguson was a US Supreme Court case, not a person. Homer Plessy, the petitioner and John Ferguson, the nominal respondent, were both male, but that fact is completely irrelevant to the case.