Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia - Significance, Interracial Marriage
Mildred Jeter Loving, Richard Perry Loving
Commonwealth of Virginia
That Virginia miscegenation statutes violate the equal protection and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clauses.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
Bernard S. Cohen
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
R. D. McIlwaine III
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
None (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Date of Decision
12 June 1967
The previous convictions were reversed.
- Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883).
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
- Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997.
- Johnson, John W., ed. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
- Lieberman, Jethro K. The Evolving Constitution. New York: Random House, 1992.
- Seidman, Louis M., Gerald R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet. Constitutional Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986.
- Malloy v. Hogan - Significance, Right To Remain Silent, Transactional Immunity
- Linkletter v. Walker - Significance, Impact, Retroactivity
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia - Significance
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia - Interracial Marriage
- Other Free Encyclopedias