SAM TASBY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
NOLAN ESTES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for expeditious findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The appellate court reviewed the case as an extraordinary matter, consi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unitary School System cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the judgment of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is vacated,1 and the cause is remanded with directions that the district court in an expeditious manner, on this or a supplemented record, make full written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of the cause, in the light of the principles relating to site selection and school construction enunciated in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554, decided April 20, 1971, at pages 20-21, 91 S.Ct. 1278-1279, and the two eases cited by the unanimous opinion of the Court in support of those principles at page 21, 91 S.Ct. 1279: United States v. Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida, 5 Cir. 1968, 395 F. 2d 66, and Brewer v. School Board of Norfolk, Virginia, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F. 2d 37.
The district court shall require the school board to file semi-annual reports during the school year similar to those required in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F. 2d 619.
Vacated and remanded.
. Under the stringent requirements of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969), which this Court has earx-ied out in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 852, and of Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S.Ct. 608, 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (1970), implemented in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 5 Cir. 1970, 419 F. 2d 1211, this Court has judicially determined that the ordinary procedures for appellate review in school desegregation cases have to be suitably adopted to assure that each system whose case is before us “begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems.” Upon consideration of the parties’ memoranda and so much of the record as is available or determined to be needed by the Court, the Court has proceeded to dispose of this case as an extraordinary matter. Rule 2, F.R.A.P.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tasby v. Nolan Estes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1971)
- Alexander v. Holmes Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1969)
- Singleton v. Jackson Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Carter v. W. Feliciana Parish Sch. Bd., 396 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1970)
- United States v. Hinds Cnty. Sch. Bd., 417 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Polk Cnty., 395 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Carlotta Mozelle Brewer and Demetria Yvonne Brewer v. The Sch. Bd. OF the City OF Norfolk, 397 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Hinds Cnty. Sch. Bd., 433 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1970)