Joe B. Smith v. City of Drew and Sunflower County, Mississippi, Marie Gertge v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi

Fifth Circuit

Joe B. Smith v. City of Drew and Sunflower County, Mississippi, Marie Gertge v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi

360 F.2d 283, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6337

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1966

Docket22323_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 283 (Joe B. Smith v. City of Drew and Sunflower County, Mississippi, Marie Gertge v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi) 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

Joe B. Smith v. City of Drew and Sunflower County, Mississippi, Marie Gertge v. City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, 360 F.2d 283, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6337 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These criminal cases, removed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443(1), were remanded to the state courts without evidentiary hearings. The removal petitions were sufficient in each instance under notice type pleadings to allege a basis for removal. Rachel v. State of Georgia, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 336, Cert. granted, 382 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 39, 15 L.Ed.2d 58.

The alleged denials of equal civil rights in the arresting and charging process set out in these removal petitions are no less than the allegations found adequate in Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 5 Cir., 1965, 347 F.2d 679, Cert. granted, 382 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 532, 15 L.Ed.2d 464. In that case we required an evidentiary hearing in the District *284 Court to ascertain the truth of the allegations. Such a hearing must be had in these cases in the event issue is joined by the filing of answers denying the pertinent allegations.

The Rachel and Peacock cases are pending on certiorari in the Supreme Court and the District Court is directed to stay its hand in these matters until decisions' are rendered in those cases. This will afford the District Court such enlightenment as may be forthcoming from those decisions in the further handling of these matters.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM:

These criminal cases, removed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443(1), were remanded to the state courts without evidentiary hearings. The removal petitions were sufficient in each instance under notice type pleadings to allege a basis for removal. Rachel v. State of Georgia, 5 Cir., 1965, 342 F.2d 336, Cert. granted, 382 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 39, 15 L.Ed.2d 58.

The alleged denials of equal civil rights in the arresting and charging process set out in these removal petitions are no less than the allegations found adequate in Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 5 Cir., 1965, 347 F.2d 679, Cert. granted, 382 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 532, 15 L.Ed.2d 464. In that case we required an evidentiary hearing in the District *284 Court to ascertain the truth of the allegations. Such a hearing must be had in these cases in the event issue is joined by the filing of answers denying the pertinent allegations.

The Rachel and Peacock cases are pending on certiorari in the Supreme Court and the District Court is directed to stay its hand in these matters until decisions' are rendered in those cases. This will afford the District Court such enlightenment as may be forthcoming from those decisions in the further handling of these matters.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 283, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-b-smith-v-city-of-drew-and-sunflower-county-mississippi-marie-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack