![code of va 18.2-456 code of va 18.2-456](https://store.lexisnexis.com/img/product/w800/9781663300904_1_cover.jpg)
A waitress asked him to move over to the other section where there were "facilities" to serve colored people. Disregarding this division, petitioner sat down on a stool in the white section. In the station, he found a restaurant in which one part was used to serve white people and one to serve Negroes.
![code of va 18.2-456 code of va 18.2-456](https://appsinblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Download-Tiger-Family-Sim-Jungle-Hunt-for-PC-Windows-111087-Mac.png)
Petitioner got off the bus and went into the bus terminal to get something to eat.
CODE OF VA 18.2 456 DRIVER
When the bus pulled up at the Richmond "Trailways Bus Terminal," the bus driver announced a forty-minute stopover there. which arrived at Richmond, Virginia, about 10:40 p.m.
![code of va 18.2-456 code of va 18.2-456](https://1.bigdata-vn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/1633020759_357_Cach-nhan-va-nhap-Code-game-Phong-Khoi-Truong-An.jpg)
Petitioner, a Negro law student, bought a Trailways bus ticket from Washington, D.C., to Montgomery, Alabama. The basic question presented in this case is whether an interstate bus passenger is denied a federal statutory or constitutional right when a restaurant in a bus terminal used by the carrier along its route discriminates in serving food to the passenger solely because of his color. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. 461-463.ĬERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA (b) Although the courts below made no findings of fact, the evidence in this case shows such a situation here. (a) When a bus carrier has volunteered to make terminal and restaurant facilities and services available to its interstate passengers as a regular part of their transportation, and the terminal and restaurant have acquiesced and cooperated in this undertaking, the terminal and restaurant must perform these services without discriminations prohibited by the Act. Under § 216(d) of the Interstate Commerce Act, which forbids any interstate common carrier by motor vehicle to subject any person to unjust discrimination, petitioner had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant, he was there "under authority of law," and it was error to affirm his conviction. Notwithstanding the fact that the petition for certiorari presented only the constitutional questions this Court will consider the statutory issue, which involves essentially the same problem - racial discrimination in interstate commerce. On petition for certiorari to this Court, he raised only the constitutional questions.ġ. On appeal, he contended that his conviction violated the Interstate Commerce Act and the Equal Protection, Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Federal Constitution but his conviction was sustained by the State Supreme Court. 454 (1960)įor refusing to leave the section reserved for white people in a restaurant in a bus terminal, petitioner, a Negro interstate bus passenger, was convicted in Virginia courts of violating a state statute making it a misdemeanor for any person "without authority of law" to remain upon the premises of another after having been forbidden to do so. (5) Disobedience or resistance of an officer of the court, juror, witness orother person to any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the court. (4) Misbehavior of an officer of the court in his official character (3) Vile, contemptuous or insulting language addressed to or published of ajudge for or in respect of any act or proceeding had, or to be had, in suchcourt, or like language used in his presence and intended for his hearing foror in respect of such act or proceeding (2) Violence, or threats of violence, to a judge or officer of the court, orto a juror, witness or party going to, attending or returning from the court,for or in respect of any act or proceeding had or to be had in such court (1) Misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as toobstruct or interrupt the administration of justice The courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt, and punish themsummarily, only in the cases following: Cases in which courts and judges may punish summarily forcontempt.
![code of va 18.2-456 code of va 18.2-456](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O4UTD22JMII/maxresdefault.jpg)
CODE OF VA 18.2 456 CODE
2006 Code of Virginia § 18.2-456 - Cases in which courts and judges may punish summarily for contemptġ8.2-456.