Lewis v. Spencer

Fifth Circuit

Lewis v. Spencer

490 F.2d 93, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9989

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1974

DocketNo. 73-2992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 490 F.2d 93 (Lewis v. Spencer) 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

Lewis v. Spencer, 490 F.2d 93, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9989 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following the remand directed by our opinion in the former appeal of this matter, Lewis v. Spencer et al., 5 Cir. 1972, 468 F.2d 553, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and entered its opinion order¹ finding adversely to the plaintiff-appellant’s contentions as to the factual issues directed to be fried by our remand. Those issues were (1) whether or not the action² of the Board of Regents of San Jacinto Junior College in not renewing Ms. Lewis’ teaching contract was taken in retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment rights and her rights of freedom of association; and (2) whether the adoption of the policy without a recognition therein of plaintiff and her husband’s unique situation (viz, recently married and the only couple in the school to whom the policy was applicable) through such a device as a grandfather clause or prospective application, would make impermissible as applied an otherwise constitutionally valid policy.

The trial court’s hearing fully ventilated these issues and his findings of fact settled them, unless we determine that his findings were “clearly erroneous”. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.; United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 1950, 339 U.S. 485, 495-496, 70 S.Ct. 711, 94 L.Ed. 1007. The task of demonstrating that the findings of a trial court are “clearly erroneous” is a heavy burden indeed. We are satisfied that the plaintiff-appellant has not met that burden on this appeal. Our view is rather that the trial court’s findings were required by the evidence [95]*95presented, to the extent that we would seriously consider assigning a “clearly erroneous” label if contrary findings had been reached.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Following the remand directed by our opinion in the former appeal of this matter, Lewis v. Spencer et al., 5 Cir. 1972, 468 F.2d 553, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and entered its opinion order¹ finding adversely to the plaintiff-appellant’s contentions as to the factual issues directed to be fried by our remand. Those issues were (1) whether or not the action² of the Board of Regents of San Jacinto Junior College in not renewing Ms. Lewis’ teaching contract was taken in retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment rights and her rights of freedom of association; and (2) whether the adoption of the policy without a recognition therein of plaintiff and her husband’s unique situation (viz, recently married and the only couple in the school to whom the policy was applicable) through such a device as a grandfather clause or prospective application, would make impermissible as applied an otherwise constitutionally valid policy.

The trial court’s hearing fully ventilated these issues and his findings of fact settled them, unless we determine that his findings were “clearly erroneous”. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.; United States v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 1950, 339 U.S. 485, 495-496, 70 S.Ct. 711, 94 L.Ed. 1007. The task of demonstrating that the findings of a trial court are “clearly erroneous” is a heavy burden indeed. We are satisfied that the plaintiff-appellant has not met that burden on this appeal. Our view is rather that the trial court’s findings were required by the evidence [95]*95presented, to the extent that we would seriously consider assigning a “clearly erroneous” label if contrary findings had been reached.

Affirmed.

Emmeline Lewis, for Herself, All Teachers Employed in the San Jacinto Junior College, Harris County, Texas, Etc. v. Thomas M. Spencer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as President of the San Jacinto Junior College, Harris County, Texas, Etc., No. 73-2992 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

490 F.2d 93 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 F.2d 93, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-spencer-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack