Corrigan v. Buckley
E99506
Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Corrigan v. Buckley canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T843432 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Corrigan v. Buckley Context triple: [Shelley v. Kraemer, relatedCase, Corrigan v. Buckley]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Goldberg v. Kelly
Goldberg v. Kelly is a landmark 1970 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held welfare recipients are entitled to an evidentiary hearing before their benefits are terminated, significantly expanding procedural due process protections.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Corrigan v. Buckley Target entity description: Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Goldberg v. Kelly
Goldberg v. Kelly is a landmark 1970 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held welfare recipients are entitled to an evidentiary hearing before their benefits are terminated, significantly expanding procedural due process protections.
-
E.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (32)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark court decision ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ real property law ⓘ |
| constitutionalIssue |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
state action doctrine ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decisionDate | 1926 ⓘ |
| decisionYear | 1926 ⓘ |
| effect |
limited challenges to racially restrictive covenants under federal law
ⓘ
paved the way for widespread legalized housing segregation in the United States ⓘ upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants ⓘ |
| followedBy |
Hurd v. Hodge
ⓘ
Shelley v. Kraemer ⓘ |
| held | racially restrictive covenants in property deeds were enforceable ⓘ |
| historicalSignificance |
illustrates early Supreme Court treatment of private discrimination under the Constitution
ⓘ
key precedent for enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants ⓘ |
| impact |
contributed to institutionalized racial segregation in housing markets
ⓘ
provided legal support for racially restrictive covenants until mid-20th century ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| laterLimitedBy |
Hurd v. Hodge
ⓘ
Shelley v. Kraemer ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | private racially restrictive covenants did not constitute state action for constitutional purposes ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
civil rights
ⓘ
housing segregation ⓘ property law ⓘ racially restrictive covenants ⓘ |
| locationOfOrigin | District of Columbia ⓘ |
| precededBy | Buchanan v. Warley ⓘ |
| statusInLaterLaw | effectively undermined by later civil rights rulings ⓘ |
| timePeriod |
Jim Crow laws
ⓘ
surface form:
Jim Crow era
|
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Corrigan v. Buckley Description of subject: Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.