holding that a reverter clause in a deed of trust allowed the city to effectively exercise control of the facility to ensure that it was always used “as a hospital,” and that such ongoing city con- trol over use of property constituted sufficient state action to subject the hospital to the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibi- tions against racial discrimination
How later courts described this case
- holding that a reverter clause in a deed of trust allowed the city to effectively exercise control of the facility to ensure that it was always used “as a hospital,” and that such ongoing city con- trol over use of property constituted sufficient state action to subject the hospital to the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibi- tions against racial discrimination
- applying the Burton-Simkins analysis retroactively
- hospital receiving no federal aid but regulated by the state
- state and federal capital construction subsidies
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BOREMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
A majority of this court decided Sim-kins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F.2d 959 (1963). I joined with Judge Haynsworth in a dissenting opinion. Subsequently, certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. 1
Although I am still conscious of a lingering doubt as to the correctness of the holding in Simkins, I recognize the binding effect of that decision on the members of this court. The application of the principles therein declared unquestionably dictate the conclusions reached by Chief Judge Sobeloff and stated in his comprehensive written opinion in the instant case. Therefore, I unhesitatingly concur in the opinion and join in the judgment of reversal and remand.
. 84 S.Ct. 793 , March 3, 1964.