Dawley v. City of Norfolk

Fourth Circuit

Dawley v. City of Norfolk

260 F.2d 647

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1958

DocketNo. 7687

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 F.2d 647 (Dawley v. City of Norfolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dawley v. City of Norfolk, 260 F.2d 647 (4th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

E. A. Dawley, Jr., an attorney of the Negro race practicing law at Norfolk, Virginia, seeks in this case a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction restraining the City of Norfolk, Virginia, and certain of its administrative officers from maintaining certain signs in the State courthouse in that city indicating the segregation of the races in the public restrooms maintained in the building for men and women. The District Judge after hearing, without expressing approval of the practice and without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to seek an appropriate remedy in the State court, dismissed the complaint. We think this action was properly taken. Whether or not the Federal court should take cognizance of the case and grant the relief prayed was within the sound discretion of the District Judge sitting in a court of equity. The matter was one which affected the internal operations of the court of the State and within its power to regulate. Under these circumstances, interference on the part of the Federal court was not required and the action of the District Judge in dismissing the case [648]*648was in accord with the principles laid down in Com. of Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176, 185, 55 S.Ct. 380, 79 L.Ed. 841.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

E. A. Dawley, Jr., an attorney of the Negro race practicing law at Norfolk, Virginia, seeks in this case a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction restraining the City of Norfolk, Virginia, and certain of its administrative officers from maintaining certain signs in the State courthouse in that city indicating the segregation of the races in the public restrooms maintained in the building for men and women. The District Judge after hearing, without expressing approval of the practice and without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to seek an appropriate remedy in the State court, dismissed the complaint. We think this action was properly taken. Whether or not the Federal court should take cognizance of the case and grant the relief prayed was within the sound discretion of the District Judge sitting in a court of equity. The matter was one which affected the internal operations of the court of the State and within its power to regulate. Under these circumstances, interference on the part of the Federal court was not required and the action of the District Judge in dismissing the case [648]*648was in accord with the principles laid down in Com. of Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176, 185, 55 S.Ct. 380, 79 L.Ed. 841.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 F.2d 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawley-v-city-of-norfolk-ca4-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack