Cases

542 F.Supp. 1050 (1982) Wiley L. BOLDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 75-297-P. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D. April 15, 1982. *1051 *1052 James U. Blacksher, Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0231p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; ┐ COLUMBUS COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; OHIO │ DEMOCRATIC PARTY,

739 F.2d 1529 19 Ed. Law Rep. 77, 16 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 116 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 82-7362. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Aug. 27, 1984.Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 22, 1984.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

7/23/2021 3:54:57 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 19-1257.pdf 19-1257_new.pdf versus 85 pages (645 KB) 85 pages (685 KB)

WISDOM, Senior Circuit Judge: In 1979 the district court held that the at-large system for electing the Marengo County, Alabama county commission and school board did not violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the Civil Rights Act of 1870, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a) (1976); and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 19

695 F.Supp. 517 (1988) Charlie HARRIS and Mose Batie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Don SIEGELMAN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Alabama, et al., Defendants, John W. Jones, Jr., as Judge of Probate of Dallas County, Alabama; et al., Defendant-Intervenors. Civ. A. No. 84-T-595-N. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, N.D.<

850 F.2d 1433 57 USLW 2063, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1028,47 Ed. Law Rep. 857 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,Samson Crum, Sr., Edwin Moss, Frederick D. Reese, ClarenceWilliams, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, Movants-Appellants,v.DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, DALLAS COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants,Dallas County Board of Education, John J. Grimes, Jr.,Willi

548 F.Supp. 875 (1982) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 78-578-H. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, N. D. September 10, 1982. *876 W. A. Kimbrough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., J. Gerald Hebert and Ellen M. Weber, Voting Section, Civ. Rights Div., Dept

469 F.Supp. 1150 (1979) James CLARK et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARENGO COUNTY et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MARENGO COUNTY COMMISSION et al., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. 77-445-H, 78-474-H. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, N. D. April 23, 1979. *1151 *11

548 F.Supp. 794 (1982) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 78-578-H. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D. September 3, 1982. *795 W. A. Kimbrough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., J. Gerald Hebert and Ellen M. Weber, Voting Section, Civ. Rights Div., Dept.

50 Cal.4th 401 (2010) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT WESLEY COWAN, Defendant and Appellant. No. S055415. Supreme Court of California. August 5, 2010. *414 Mark Goldrosen, under appointment by the Supreme Court; Weinberg & Wilder and Nina Wilder for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Br

542 F.Supp. 1078 (1982) Leila G. BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 75-298-P. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D. April 15, 1982. *1079 *1080 J

concurring and dissenting. (Eisele # 2) In a dissenting opinion filed on the 7th of December 1989, I set forth my belief that this entire proceeding should have been dismissed because the plaintiffs waited without excuse until 1989 to challenge the redistricting plan adopted in 1981 and because of the prejudice caused thereby to the defendants, the people in the affected areas, and, indeed, to the integrity