OTIS DANIEL, JR., ETC., ET AL., ETC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND WILLIAM RAWLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL., ETC., 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's order denying a preliminary injunction must be vacated because it failed to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
Plaintiffs, black students suspended or expelled, sought reinstatement via a preliminary injunction, claiming due process violations. Due to the passa…
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 Rule 52(A) Of The Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs, black students, for reinstatement from suspension or expulsion from school because the procedures followed by the defendants, it is claimed, did not comply with the requirements of due process as defined and refined by this Court in Black Students v. Williams, 5 Cir. 1972, 470 F. 2d 957; Williams v. Dade County School Board, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 299; Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1961, 294 F. 2d 150.
Because of the passage of time the plaintiffs now limit their request for relief to require the defendants to expunge from the record of each black student punished any notation of the suspension or expulsion imposed pursuant to the hearings in October and November, 1972. Additionally, plaintiffs seek an injunction to require the defendants to enact disciplinary procedures comporting with due process.
After a lengthy hearing the court below entered an order, but the observations made in the course of it are not, in any proper sense, findings of fact upon the vital issues in the case. Statements of ultimate fact are mingled with arguments and extraneous views and advice. “It is of the highest importance to a proper review of the action of a court in granting or refusing a preliminary injunction that there should be fair compliance with Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure” (footnote omitted). Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 1940, 309 U.S. 310, 60 S.Ct. 517. 84 L.Ed. 774. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand this cause with directions to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Vacated and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc. v. Tracor/MAS, Inc., 520 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Echols v. Sullivan, 521 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1940)
- St. John Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. OF Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)
- Williams v. The Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 441 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Black Students OF N. Fort Myers JR.-SR. High Sch. ex rel. v. Williams, 470 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1972)