Jim Fair and Jim Hinnant, Both Individually and as Representative of the Class of Similarly Situated Residents of of the State of Florida v. Jim Sebesta, as Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida, Etc., Joel Francis Woodman, Individually, and Joel Francis Woodman, as Representative of the Class, Etc. v. James Sebesta, Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida

475 F.2d 1140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10584
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 11, 1973
Docket72-3301
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 475 F.2d 1140 (Jim Fair and Jim Hinnant, Both Individually and as Representative of the Class of Similarly Situated Residents of of the State of Florida v. Jim Sebesta, as Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida, Etc., Joel Francis Woodman, Individually, and Joel Francis Woodman, as Representative of the Class, Etc. v. James Sebesta, Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jim Fair and Jim Hinnant, Both Individually and as Representative of the Class of Similarly Situated Residents of of the State of Florida v. Jim Sebesta, as Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida, Etc., Joel Francis Woodman, Individually, and Joel Francis Woodman, as Representative of the Class, Etc. v. James Sebesta, Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County, Florida, 475 F.2d 1140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10584 (5th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

475 F.2d 1140

Jim FAIR and Jim Hinnant, both Individually and as
representative of the class of similarly situated
residents of of the State of Florida,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Jim SEBESTA, as Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough
County, Florida, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Joel Francis WOODMAN, Individually, and Joel Francis
Woodman, as representative of the class, etc., et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
James SEBESTA, Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County,
Florida, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 72-3301, 72-3300 Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

April 11, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Jerry E. Oxner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., David W. Thorpe, Asst. County Atty., Tampa, Fla., for James Sebesta.

Jim Fair, pro se.

Leslie Harold Levinson, Gainesville, Fla., Richard P. Condon, Tampa, Fla., for Hinnant.

Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We find that these consolidated cases require a three-judge district court, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2281. We therefore vacate the decision of the lower court, 346 F.Supp. 913, for want of jurisdiction and remand the cases with instructions to convene a three-judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284.

Vacated and remanded.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

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

Related

Meyers v. Jackson
390 F. Supp. 37 (E.D. Arkansas, 1975)
Hinnant v. Sebesta
363 F. Supp. 398 (M.D. Florida, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 F.2d 1140, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jim-fair-and-jim-hinnant-both-individually-and-as-representative-of-the-ca5-1973.