DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 3601

Citation
§ 3601
Parent Document
Gadson v. Royal/Concord Gardens (1996)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
1996-11-20
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10695430/gadson-v-royalconcord-gardens/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (110)

Full Text

670 chars 
In order to prevail on their claims under the FHA,
plaintiffs must demonstrate a discriminatory motive or animus
based upon race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or
national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.     Concord Gardens claims,
however, that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or res
judicata bar plaintiffs from relitigating the state court's
conclusion that "the eviction was not a retaliatory move by
[Concord Gardens] due to M r . Gadson's race."   Accordingly, it
asserts that plaintiffs' claims of racial discrimination must be
dismissed. The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata plainly apply in civil rights cases. See, e.g., Kremer v .