Im trying to get a summary of the case and what the issue surrounded.
203508
In 1906, twenty of thirty-one lots in the 100 block of Bryant Street, Northwest, in the City of Washington, were sold subject to the following covenant: '* * * that said lot shall never be rented, leased, sold, transferred or conveyed unto any Negro or colored person, under a penalty of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), which shall be a lien against said property.' The covenant imposes no time limitation on the restriction.\n\nPrior to the sales which gave rise to these cases, the twenty lots which are subject to the covenants were at all times owned and occupied by white persons, except for a brief period when three of the houses were occupied by Negroes who were eventually induced to move without [334 U.S. 24 , 27]   legal action. The remaining eleven lots in the same block,1 however, are not subject to a restrictive agreement and, as found by the District Court, were occupied by Negroes for the twenty years prior to the institution of this litigation.\n\nThese cases involve seven of the twenty lots which are subject to the terms of the restrictive covenants. In No. 290, petitioners Hurd, found by the trial court to be Negroes,2 purchased one of the restricted properties from the white owners. In No. 291, petitioner Urciolo, a white real estate dealer, sold and conveyed three of the restricted properties to the Negro petitioners Rowe, Savage, and Stewart. Petitioner Urciolo also owns three other lots in the block subject to the covenants. In both cases, the Negro petitioners are presently occupying as homes the respective properties which have been conveyed to them.\n\nSuits were instituted in the District Court by respondents, who own other property in the block subject to the terms of the covenants, praying for injunctive relief to enforce the terms of the restrictive agreement. The cases were consolidated for trial, and after a hearing, the court entered a judgment declaring null and void the deeds of the Negro petitioners; enjoining petitioner Urciolo and one Ryan, the white property owners who had sold the houses to the Negro petitioners, from leasing, selling or conveying the properties to any Negro or colored person; enjoining the Negro petitioners from leasing or conveying the properties and directing those petitioners 'to remove themselves and all of their personal belongings' from the premises within sixty days. [334 U.S. 24 , 28]   The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with one justice dissenting, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 3 The majority of the court was of the opinion that the action of the District Court was consistent with earlier decisions of the Court of Appeals and that those decisions should be held determinative in these cases.\n\nPetitioners have attacked the judicial enforcement of the restrictive covenants in these case on a wide variety of grounds. Primary reliance, however, is placed on the contention that such governmental action on the part of the courts of the District of Columbia is forbidden by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. 4  \n\nWhether judicial enforcement of racial restrictive agreements by the federal courts of the District of Columbia violates the Fifth Amendment has never been adjudicated by this Court. In Corrigan v. Buckley, 1926, 271 U.S. 323 , an appeal was taken to this Court from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which had affirmed an order of the lower court granting enforcement to a restrictive covenant. But as was pointed out in our opinion in Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, the only constitutional issue which had been raised in the lower courts in the Corrigan case, and consequently, the only constitutional question before this Court on appeal, related to the validity of the private agreements as such. Nothing in the opinion [334 U.S. 24 , 29]   of this Court in that case, therefore, may properly be regarded as an adjudication of the issue
9780
Call the department.  They will give you relevant information.  They don't publish these because they don't want people making false grievences.
118757
Any reputable lawyer won't charge you for a consultation.  You can lay out what happened and he/she'll let you know the best course of action.  Don't forget, they don't just know the law, they also know the cops in town and the judges, so they've got a fairly good idea of what your chances of successfully fighting the charges are.
599139
What you are looking for is "Case Law" and "Case History". I have a link here that may help you. If it doens't, then you may have to go to the County courthouse and tell the clerk of court what you are looking for. They can direct you from there. Another place to check is at a local college that has a law program. It is likely that they have a law library that you can go and look around in. The people there can help you find what you are looking for as well. Here is the link:\n\nhttp://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=26528
72804
You need to find a library with microfiche files of old newspapers for that area. If there was a conviction there may also be a record of that in the courthouse where it happened but you would probably have to pay someone to get you that info since it would take some digging through old files by a clerk. \nThat is about it.
447874
Ask the clerk of court of the Ramsey County and it is the only way.  What happened in the court cannot be divulged online.
652044
go to this website it'll help
49375
Call around - get a lawyer who handles this and spend $50 with them to see if you have a case.  If you do they WILL TELL YOU !
502318
I would listen to the D.A in this case. Unless there is absolutley NO proof or enough evidence, I'd say the DA knows what they are talking about. Bless your heart and I hope everything works out for you.
144150
Contact your local legislative representative and explain the situation to them.  Provide them with copies of all documentation and the names and telephone numbers of those with whom you have talked.  They can then advise you and maybe expedite your case.
145321
It all depends on the situation, and I can respect your decision not to reveal it to the Internet. Nobody will be able to tell you anything with what you are saying. Kind of a catch 22 isn't it. I am tied in with the courts where I live, and I wouldn't give you any advise because that is your choice to make, but I might be able to give you some comparisons, if you will tell me what is going on. So you can Email me if you want to, my Email is on my page.
108509
There have been quite a few cases. See the site below.
554426
ask a judge or police officer to explain it.
407996
Look on the right for index area and keep narrowing it down.\nStalking, assault, theft and robbery.\n Hope it helps.\nMan, sombody's in deep doo doo.
433935
A whole lot depends on what state you live in, whether police reports were taken, and a lot more info than you gave us (as voluminous as it was).  You do need a good lawyer.  Good luck
249468
google it, or do a library search on 'cold cases' or 'unsolved cases' or something. good luck!
638658
Tell the whole story... give a link or something ,,,,other then that you have nothing to go on other then get a lawyer...