Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E.
Significance, The King And Queen Landfill Dilemma, Community Mobilization, Impact, Further Readings
Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, Inc., and others
King and Queen County Board of Supervisors consisting of five members: R. A. Kay, Jr., R. H. Bourne, J. R. Walton, R. F. Alsop, and W. L. Hickman
That placing a landfill in a predominantly African American area results in a racially disproportionate impact and violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Chief Defense Lawyer
John Granville Douglass
Richard L. Williams (writing for the court)
Date of Decision
21 June 1991
Ruled in favor of the Virginia county and allowed the project to proceed by finding that the racially disproportionate impact was not intentional.
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul - Fighting Words, The Lower Court's Rule, The Supreme Court Rules, Further Readings
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - Significance, Win Some, Lose Some, The Dark Horse, Massachusetts's Abortion Consent Act
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - Significance
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - Further Readings
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - The King And Queen Landfill Dilemma
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - Community Mobilization
- Inc. v. Kay R.I.S.E. - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias