Gentry Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee v. Richard Mader

Supreme Court

Gentry Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee v. Richard Mader

444 U.S. 505, 100 S. Ct. 992, 62 L. Ed. 2d 701, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 156

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 19, 1980

Docket78-1780

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 444 U.S. 505 (Gentry Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee v. Richard Mader) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gentry Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee v. Richard Mader, 444 U.S. 505, 100 S. Ct. 992, 62 L. Ed. 2d 701, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 156 (1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing is granted.

In Kopald v. Carr, 343 F. Supp. 51 (MD Tenn. 1972), the District Court applied this Court’s earlier holding in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962), to invalidate two senatorial dis-tricting plans. That decision resulted in the formulation of a so-called court ordered “Kopald Plan.” That plan was superseded by a 1973 legislative plan.

In this litigation the District Court invalidated the 1973 legislative plan. It enjoined the defendants from conducting any elections pursuant to that plan and retained jurisdiction to review whatever substitute the Tennessee General Assembly might enact prior to June 1, 1979, or, if necessary, to reinstate the 1972 “Kopald Plan.” The court further ordered a hearing to award fees to plaintiffs’ counsel.

In response to the State’s appeal to this Court, appellees pointed out that the legislature had enacted a new plan effective on June 6, 1979, argued that the controversy over the *506 validity of the 1973 legislative plan had therefore become moot; and requested that the appeal therefore be dismissed. This Court, following a practice that is appropriate when an entire case has become moot but which is inappropriate when only the issues raised on appeal have been resolved, entered an order directing that the judgment of the District Court be vacated and that the entire action be dismissed as moot. Post, p. 806.

The recent legislation did not moot the entire case, but only the issues raised on appeal. Appellees may still wish to attack the newly enacted legislation or apply for attorney’s fees. We therefore vacate our prior order. In lieu thereof, we direct that the judgment of the District Court be vacated without prejudice to such further proceedings in the District Court as may be appropriate. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church, 404 U. S. 412 (1972).

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing is granted.

In Kopald v. Carr, 343 F. Supp. 51 (MD Tenn. 1972), the District Court applied this Court’s earlier holding in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962), to invalidate two senatorial dis-tricting plans. That decision resulted in the formulation of a so-called court ordered “Kopald Plan.” That plan was superseded by a 1973 legislative plan.

In this litigation the District Court invalidated the 1973 legislative plan. It enjoined the defendants from conducting any elections pursuant to that plan and retained jurisdiction to review whatever substitute the Tennessee General Assembly might enact prior to June 1, 1979, or, if necessary, to reinstate the 1972 “Kopald Plan.” The court further ordered a hearing to award fees to plaintiffs’ counsel.

In response to the State’s appeal to this Court, appellees pointed out that the legislature had enacted a new plan effective on June 6, 1979, argued that the controversy over the *506 validity of the 1973 legislative plan had therefore become moot; and requested that the appeal therefore be dismissed. This Court, following a practice that is appropriate when an entire case has become moot but which is inappropriate when only the issues raised on appeal have been resolved, entered an order directing that the judgment of the District Court be vacated and that the entire action be dismissed as moot. Post, p. 806.

The recent legislation did not moot the entire case, but only the issues raised on appeal. Appellees may still wish to attack the newly enacted legislation or apply for attorney’s fees. We therefore vacate our prior order. In lieu thereof, we direct that the judgment of the District Court be vacated without prejudice to such further proceedings in the District Court as may be appropriate. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church, 404 U. S. 412 (1972).

It is so ordered.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Norfolk Southern Corporation and North American Van Lines, Inc., Intervenors. Patrick W. Simmons v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Norfolk Southern Corporation and North American Van Lines, Inc., Intervenors

818 F.2d 87 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)

Marilyn Inc. v. Evans

803 F.2d 1383 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)

Marilyn T., Inc. v. Evans

803 F.2d 1383 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)

Kitlutsisti v. Arco Alaska, Inc.

782 F.2d 800 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Nunam Kitlutsisti v. Arco Alaska, Inc.

782 F.2d 800 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Beatrice Milton v. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor, S. Martin Taylor, Director, Michigan Employment Security Commission

762 F.2d 1009 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)

Gerard Monzillo, Members of American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. Morris Biller, Members of National Executive Board of the American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Trine Council, Members of American Postal Workers Union, Cross-Appellants v. Morris Biller, Members of National Executive Board of the American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Cross-Appellees

735 F.2d 1456 (D.C. Circuit, 1984)

Monzillo v. Biller

735 F.2d 1456 (D.C. Circuit, 1984)

33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 884, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,854 Boston Chapter, Naacp v. Nancy B. Beecher, Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718, Intervenor, Pedro Castro v. Nancy B. Beecher, Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc., Intervenor, Pedro Castro v. Nancy B. Beecher, Boston Chapter, Naacp v. Nancy B. Beecher, Civil Service Commission

716 F.2d 931 (First Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 U.S. 505, 100 S. Ct. 992, 62 L. Ed. 2d 701, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentry-crowell-secretary-of-state-of-tennessee-v-richard-mader-scotus-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack