United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Joseph P. Balistrieri and Angelina J. Hurdelbrink, Cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant need not actually know that he is violating the Fair Housing Act in order to be found to have discriminated
• holding that a defendant need not actually know that he is violating the Fair Housing Act in order to be found to have discriminated
• holding that offering apartments to Black testers at higher rental rates violates the Fair Housing Act
• holding that a defendant need not actually know that he is violating the Fair Housing Act in order to be found to have discriminated
• recognizing that racial discrimination, one of the “relics of slavery,” is the type of conduct that is reasonably expected to cause emotional distress
• holding in the context of the Fair Housing Act, which has the same relevant statutory language as the ADA, that “civil penalties . . . serve . . . a purpose: to punish wrongdoing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).