Oscar Thomie v. B. E. Dennard

459 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 1972
Docket30595
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 1037 (Oscar Thomie v. B. E. Dennard) 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
Oscar Thomie v. B. E. Dennard, 459 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The instant suit was filed on May 22, 1970, as a class action on behalf of plaintiffs and other Negro citizens similarly situated, seeking injunctive relief against pending and future prosecutions pursuant to the parade ordinance of Perry, Georgia and a declaratory judgment that said ordinance was facially unconstitutional as a derogation of plaintiffs’ right of free speech.

The district court, after holding a full hearing on the merits of the controversy, denied relief on the basis that the anti-injunction statute 28 U.S. C.A. § 2283 barred relief. Moreover, the court concluded, in regard to the exception provided by Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965), that the evidence failed to establish a threat of irreparable harm or a purpose by the state to harass, intimidate, or otherwise discourage the Negro citizens of Perry from exercising their right of free speech. Although these findings were made by the district court on July 9, 1970, well before the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), they substantially conform to the requirements enunciated in that case. Moreover, we find no unusual circumstances present in the instant case sufficient to overcome the strong policy against federal interference with pending state criminal prosecutions. See also Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77, 91 S.Ct. 758, 27 L.Ed.2d 696 (1971); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S.Ct. 674, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971); Dyson v. Stein, 401 U.S. 200, 91 S.Ct. 769, 27 L.Ed.2d 781 (1971); Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U.S. 216, 91 S.Ct. 777, 27 L.Ed.2d 792 (1971).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Black Jack Distributors, Inc. v. Beame
433 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D. New York, 1977)
Dasher v. Boyett
365 F. Supp. 809 (M.D. Florida, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-thomie-v-b-e-dennard-ca5-1972.