Harris v. Board of Education
This text of 105 F.3d 591 (Harris v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 95-8111.
J. Jerome HARRIS, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee- Cross-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ATLANTA; A School District of the State of Georgia, Defendant-Counter-Claimant,
Joseph G. Martin, Jr., Individually and in his Official Capacity as President of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Mary Anne Bellinger, Rev., Individually and in her Official Capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; John F. Elger, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Carolyn D. Yancey, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; D.F. Glover, Dr., Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Robert Waymer, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Midge Sweet, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Ina Evans, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; Preston W. Williams, Dr., Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants-Cross- Appellees.
April 16, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:91-CV-1107-MHS), Marvin H. Shoob, Judge.
Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLS1, District Judge. INTERIM ORDER:
The panel heard oral argument in this case on April 11, 1996.
After hearing oral argument, the panel is of the opinion that this
case can be and should be settled.
1 Honorable Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. The panel hereby refers this appeal to the Eleventh Circuit
Conference Attorney for settlement discussions, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1.
The parties and their counsel are directed to contact this
court's Appellate Conference Office not later than fifteen days
from receipt of this order to explore a resolution of their
differences.
Before settlement discussions, counsel for the parties must
consult with their clients and obtain as much authority as feasible
to settle the appeal. Counsel and the parties are expected to
discuss all issues in good faith.
The conference attorney shall issue an order as contemplated
by Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1(d) or issue a report to the panel not
later than June 14, 1996.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 F.3d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-board-of-education-ca11-1997.