Avent v. North Carolina, 373 U.S. 375 (1963)

U.S. Supreme Court

Avent v. North Carolina, 373 U.S. 375 (1963)

Avent v. North Carolina

No. 11

Argued November 5, 7, 1962

Decided May 20, 1963

373 U.S. 375

Syllabus

In Durham, N.C., which has an ordinance requiring racial segregation in public eating places, five Negro students and two white students were convicted of criminal trespass for sitting at a lunch counter where only white people customarily were served and refusing to leave when requested by the manager.

Held: a judgment affirming their conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 373 U. S. 244.

U.S. Supreme Court

Avent v. North Carolina, 373 U.S. 375 (1963)

Avent v. North Carolina

No. 11

Argued November 5, 7, 1962

Decided May 20, 1963

373 U.S. 375

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

In Durham, N.C., which has an ordinance requiring racial segregation in public eating places, five Negro students and two white students were convicted of criminal trespass for sitting at a lunch counter where only white people customarily were served and refusing to leave when requested by the manager.

Held: a judgment affirming their conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 373 U. S. 244.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, ante, p. 373 U. S. 244. Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600.

[For opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see ante, p. 373 U. S. 248.]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.