SARA SLACK, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLANTIC WHITE TOWER SYSTEM, INC., APPELLEE

4th Cir. | 1960-12-27
No. 8096
284 F.2d 746 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Boynton v. Virginia does not alter the holding of Williams v. Howard Johnson's Restaurant, requiring affirmance.


Facts & Procedural History

A Negro newspaper reporter was refused service at the defendant's restaurant in Baltimore because of her race. She sued for declaratory and injunctive…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the same issue as Williams v. Howard Johnson’s Restaurant, 4 Cir., 1959, 268 F. 2d 845. Here, the plaintiff, a Negro newspaper reporter, was travelling by automobile from Washington, D. C., to New York City. While passing through Baltimore, she stopped at the defendant’s restaurant located along U. S. Route 40 in that city. She was there refused service because of her race. As a result, she brought this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court dismissed her complaint upon the authority of the Williams case, supra, and this appeal follows. See Slack v. Atlantic White Tower System, Inc., D.C.D.Md.1960, 181 F.Supp. 124.

The only question that need be considered now is what effect, if any, does the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Boynton v. Virginia, 1960, 81 S.Ct. 182, have upon the holding of the Williams case. In Boynton, the Court held that a restaurant, connected with an interstate bus terminal, may not under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., discriminate against members of the public because of race. There, the Court’s opinion deliberately stated:

“We are not holding that every time a bus stops at a wholly independent roadside restaurant the Interstate Commerce Act requires that restaurant service be supplied in harmony with the provisions of that Act.” 81 S.Ct. at page 188.

Since the Supreme Court has thus expressly refrained from ruling upon this issue, Williams v. Howard Johnson’s Restaurant, supra, dictates affirmance here.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw