Daniel Givelber
Northeastern University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Daniel Givelber.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review | 1975
Judith Olans Brown; Daniel Givelber; Stephen Subrin
Immediately after the Civil War, the United States Congress enacted, over presidential veto, a statute popularly known as the 1866 Civil Rights Act. In 1870 that statute was reenacted, and a major part is presently codified as sections 1981 and 1982 of title 42 of the United States Code. Those sections lay virtually moribund for a hundred years, until they were reviewed in 1968 as a judicial contribution to the mid-twentieth century civil rights movement. Passed in the wake of Union victory, the 1866 Civil Rights Act represented an attempt by the victors to crystallize the metaphysics of emancipation into the perquisites of citizenship and to give “real content to the freedom guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment.” The language of section 1982 is deceptively simple: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Since 1968 there has been considerable litigation under this statute, but little appreciation of the ambiguity of the words “same right … as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Decisions tend to discuss the evidence presented in great detail without relating that evidence to a carefully drawn definition of the statutory language and the elements of the prima facie case which that definition should supply. Until we know what the plaintiff must prove, however, evidentiary analysis lacks direction, and until we know what the statutory language means, there will be no consistent approach to what the plaintiff must prove. In this Article we shall attempt to define the words “same right … as is enjoyed by white citizens,” to set forth the elements of the prima facie case derived therefrom, and to consider what evidence, inferences, and presumptions would permit a plaintiff to establish those elements. Our inquiry is pertinent not only to section 1982 cases: Section 1981 contains parallel language with respect to contract actions, and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (as well as several state and local statutes) is directed to similar ends. Therefore, while our definition of the “same right” language is most relevant to sections 1982 and 1981, our discussion of evidentiary considerations is also applicable to civil rights litigation in general.
Wisconsin Law Review | 1984
Daniel Givelber; William J. Bowers; C. L. Blitch
American Journal of Public Health | 2015
Lissy C. Friedman; Andrew Cheyne; Daniel Givelber; Mark A. Gottlieb; Richard A. Daynard
Archive | 1997
Daniel Givelber
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology | 2010
Amy Farrell; Daniel Givelber
Journal of Legal Education | 1995
Daniel Givelber; Brook K. Baker; John McDevitt; Robyn Miliano
American Criminal Law Review | 2005
Daniel Givelber
Law and Social Inquiry-journal of The American Bar Foundation | 2008
Daniel Givelber; Amy Farrell
American Journal of Public Health | 2006
Daniel Givelber; Lori Strickler
American Criminal Law Review | 2001
Daniel Givelber