Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n

9 Citing cases

  1. Mich. Protection Serv. v. Babin

    799 F. Supp. 695 (E.D. Mich. 1992)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that § 3604(c) governs "only the discriminatory comments of a person selling/renting his dwelling, or an agent acting on behalf of that person"

    Even the most expansive interpretations of the Fair Housing Act "do not extend coverage beyond entities that directly provide housing or those that are integrally involved in the sale or financing of real estate."Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1320 (N.D.Ill. 1987)). The court in Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313 (N.D.Ill. 1987), also examined the scope of § 3604(a).

  2. Street v. J.C. Bradford Co.

    886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 6,258 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding summary judgment is proper when, "after being afforded sufficient time for discovery, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.56(f)," the non-moving party does not produce evidence to support an essential element of the claim

    116 F.R.D. at 194. This view has been expressly approved in the following authorities: Collins v. Associated Pathologists, Ltd., 844 F.2d 473, 476 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 137, 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988); Clements v. County of Nassau, 835 F.2d 1000, 1004 (2d Cir. 1987); Burchett, 699 F. Supp. at 116; Santiago v. Lane, 697 F. Supp. 300, 301 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Nixon v. Celotex Corp., 693 F. Supp. 547, 552 (W.D.Mich. 1988); Butler Foods, 680 F. Supp. at 473; Soot v. General Elec. Co., 681 F. Supp. 157, 162 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1318 (N.D.Ill. 1987); Haines v. Quigg, 673 F. Supp. 314, 318 (N.D.Ind. 1987). Nevertheless, even applying the "new era" principles, we conclude that the orders granting summary judgment in this case must be reversed.

  3. Mercer v. Dempster

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-625-S (W.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2010)

    Even the most expansive interpretations of the Fair Housing Act "do not extend coverage beyond entities that directly provide housing or those that are integrally involved in the sale or financing of real estate." Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1320 (N.D. Ill. 1987). To state a discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act, Plaintiff must allege that she was a member of a statutorily protected class who applied for, and was qualified to rent or purchase a house, and was rejected, although housing remained available.

  4. Halprin v. Prairie S. Fam. Homes of Dearborn Park Ass.

    208 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the alleged discriminatory provision of services by a homeowners' association "in no way include[d] either a direct or inferential allegation with respect to a material element of a § 3604(b) claim: the sale or rental of a dwelling"

    See, e.g., Jancik, 44 F.3d at 554 (involving conduct in the rental of an apartment); Heights Cmty. Cong. v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F.2d 135, 141 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's holding that § 3604(c) requires as a predicate of the prohibited housing practice the sale or rental of a dwelling; therefore, § 3604(c) prohibits only statements by an owner or his agent that pertain to the selling or renting of his dwelling); Space Hunters, Inc., 2001 WL 968993, at *1 (involving conduct regarding a newspaper advertisement concerning rooms available for rent); Michael v. Sal Caprice, 99 C 2313, 1999 WL 688733, at *2 (N.D.Ill. June 11, 1999) (finding that § 3604(c) makes it unlawful to make any discriminatory statement in renting a unit; therefore, a tenant already living in the building cannot allege a violation of § 3604(c)); Ores v. Willow West Condo. Ass'n, No. 94 C 4717, 1996 WL 111894, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Mar.12, 1996) (involving conduct regarding the sale of a condominium); Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1322 n. 13 (N.D.Ill. 1987) (finding that defendant's statement could not have violated § 3604(c) because its statement was not made with respect to the sale or rental of a particular dwelling); Holmgren v. Little Vill. Cmty. Reporter, 342 F. Supp. 512, 513 (N.D.Ill. 1971) (involving classified advertisements indicating a preference for home buyers and apartment tenants of particular national origins).

  5. Eva v. Midwest National Mortgage Banc, Inc.

    143 F. Supp. 2d 862 (N.D. Ohio 2001)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that § 3605 does not require a defendant to be a mortgage lender, banker, mortgage arranger, or creditor

    Id. In support of this proposition, Defendant USMR cites a single case captioned Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313 (N.D.Ill. 1987). Id. at 12-13.

  6. U.S. v. Massachusetts Indus. Finance Agency

    910 F. Supp. 21 (D. Mass. 1996)   Cited 17 times
    Holding tax-exempt bond financing falls under § 3605's umbrella of "financial assistance"

    The critical question is not whether one type of conduct exactly parallels another type already explicitly proscribed by the FHAA. Rather, the issue is whether the defendant's activity is "integrally involved in the sale or financing of real estate." Devereux Foundation, Inc. v. O'Donnell, No. 89-6134, 1990 WL 2796, at *6 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 12, 1990) (quoting Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1320 (N.D.Ill. 1987)). An analogy to property insurers is instructive.

  7. Woods v. Foster

    884 F. Supp. 1169 (N.D. Ill. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that a "duty exists to refrain from employing individuals that the employer knows, or should know, are a danger to others."

    Plaintiffs' argument is supported by the analysis of many courts, including this one, that have interpreted the phrase to be "as broad as Congress could have made it." See, e.g., Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Association, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1319 (N.D.Ill. 1987) (quoting Zuch v. Hussey, 366 F. Supp. 553, 557 (E.D.Mich. 1973)).

  8. S.S.H.C. v. Board of Realtors

    713 F. Supp. 1068 (N.D. Ill. 1989)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that ordinances that did not prohibit but merely regulated the size, placement and manner of "For Sale" signs did not violate the standard of Clark or, therefore, the First Amendment

    The court concludes that counterplaintiffs have failed to show any such effect of the SSHC's programs. As in Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Assn., 674 F. Supp. 1313 (N.D.Ill. 1987), the SSHC's activities do not "affect detrimentally the availability of housing" because they "do not deprive anyone of . . . housing information," but "served to increase, not decrease, the existing supply of housing information," and its "practice of fully informing homeseekers of its policy avoided the dangers inherent in the typical steering situation . . ." Steptoe, supra at 1319, 1320.

  9. Tellurian U.C.A.N., Inc. v. Goodrich

    504 N.W.2d 342 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    Applying federal law

    Thus, if Tellurian prevails in this action, it may be entitled to attorney's fees. Its claim for attorney's fees is not moot. in fair housing cases, it is not uncommon for some elements of requested relief to become moot while others do not. See, e.g., Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 471-72 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 813 (1989); Steptoe v. Beverly Area Planning Ass'n, 674 F. Supp. 1313, 1316 n. 3 (N.D. Ill. 1987). IV.