Howlette v. City of Richmond, Virginia

Fourth Circuit

Howlette v. City of Richmond, Virginia

580 F.2d 704

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 1978

Docket78-1296

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 580 F.2d 704 (Howlette v. City of Richmond, Virginia) 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

Howlette v. City of Richmond, Virginia, 580 F.2d 704 (4th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

580 F.2d 704

M. Philmore HOWLETTE and William V. Daniel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
and
Richmond Independent Taxpayers Association, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, William J. Leidinger, City
Manager and H. Jack Lissenden, Director of
Finance, Appellees.

No. 78-1296.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued July 18, 1978.
Decided July 20, 1978.

David M. Shapiro, Caudle & Shapiro, Richmond, Va., for appellants.

Michael W. Smith, Richmond, Va. (Conard B. Mattox, Jr., City Atty., and Andrew J. Brent, Lee F. Davis, Jr., Leslie W. Mullins, Christian, Barton Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants contest a judgment of the district court upholding the constitutionality of a provision of the charter of the City of Richmond requiring each signature of a qualified voter on a petition for a referendum to be verified before a notary. For reasons adequately stated in the memorandum of the district court, Howlette v. The City of Richmond, C/A No. 78-0215-R (April 14, 1978), we conclude that the ordinance is valid. Cf. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974).

The appellants also complain of the court's rulings concerning designation of a class representative, and they question whether the plaintiffs are acting independently of the defendants. Inasmuch as the appellants were allowed to intervene, the court's designation of the plaintiffs as the representatives of the class is of little moment. The intervenors in effect also protected the class. If they had prevailed on the merits, the relief afforded them would have inured to the benefit of the class.

The judgment is affirmed. The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

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

580 F.2d 704

M. Philmore HOWLETTE and William V. Daniel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
and
Richmond Independent Taxpayers Association, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, William J. Leidinger, City
Manager and H. Jack Lissenden, Director of
Finance, Appellees.

No. 78-1296.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued July 18, 1978.
Decided July 20, 1978.

David M. Shapiro, Caudle & Shapiro, Richmond, Va., for appellants.

Michael W. Smith, Richmond, Va. (Conard B. Mattox, Jr., City Atty., and Andrew J. Brent, Lee F. Davis, Jr., Leslie W. Mullins, Christian, Barton Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants contest a judgment of the district court upholding the constitutionality of a provision of the charter of the City of Richmond requiring each signature of a qualified voter on a petition for a referendum to be verified before a notary. For reasons adequately stated in the memorandum of the district court, Howlette v. The City of Richmond, C/A No. 78-0215-R (April 14, 1978), we conclude that the ordinance is valid. Cf. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974).

The appellants also complain of the court's rulings concerning designation of a class representative, and they question whether the plaintiffs are acting independently of the defendants. Inasmuch as the appellants were allowed to intervene, the court's designation of the plaintiffs as the representatives of the class is of little moment. The intervenors in effect also protected the class. If they had prevailed on the merits, the relief afforded them would have inured to the benefit of the class.

The judgment is affirmed. The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 F.2d 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howlette-v-city-of-richmond-virginia-ca4-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack