Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Meyer v. Holley

Docket No.: 01-1120
Certiorari Granted: May 20 2002
Argued: December 3, 2002
Decided: January 22, 2003

Topics:

Fair Housing, Civil Rights, Desegregation, EPA, Fair Housing Act, Natural Resources, Social Security Act, Title VII, antitrust, racial discrimination

PartyNames: and Designated Officer/Broker of Triad, Inc., etc. v. Emma Mary Ellen Holley, et vir, et al.
Petitioner: and Designated Officer/Broker of Triad, Inc., etc.
Respondent: Emma Mary Ellen Holley, et vir, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 258 F.3d 1127. QUESTION PRESENTED Under well-established rules of agency law, an owner or corporate officer will notbe held vicariously liable for the torts of his corporation or its other agents, merely by virtue of his office. Rather, liability must be founded upon the owner's or officer'sown specific acts. The question presented here is whether, as held by the Ninth Circuit, the criteria under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. ยง 3601, et seq.) are different, so that owners and officers of corporations are absolutely liable for an employee's or agent'sviolation of the Act, whether or not they personally directed, authorized, or were
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

and Designated Officer/Broker of Triad, Inc., etc.
v.
Emma Mary Ellen Holley, et vir, et al.
537 U.S. 280 (2003)
Question:

Does the Fair Housing Act impose personal liability without fault upon an officer or owner of a residential real estate corporation for the unlawful activity of the corporation's employee or agent?

Meyer v. Holley
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 3, 2002

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Meyer, 0 vote(s) against
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)