Rita Johnson v. The State of Mississippi

Fifth Circuit

Rita Johnson v. The State of Mississippi

586 F.2d 387, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7033

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1978

Docket78-2368

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 586 F.2d 387 (Rita Johnson v. The State of 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

Rita Johnson v. The State of Mississippi, 586 F.2d 387, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7033 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Mississippi Code § 37-41-3 provided that students living one mile or more from their attendance centers were entitled to state financed transportation, with the exception that students residing within the corporate limits of a municipality and attending school within those corporate limits were not entitled to free transportation regardless of the distance from the school.

Upon a challenge filed on behalf of students residing within corporate limits, the District Court held that the statutory distinction between students residing within *388 and without corporate limits was an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the laws, both on its face and as applied. The enforcement of the statute was permanently enjoined.

After this appeal was filed, the Mississippi Legislature responded to the decision of the District Court by amending the statute so as to provide free transportation for all students living one mile or more from their attendance center. This legislative action eliminated the unconstitutionality denounced by the District Court.

This being so, we are no longer presented with a live case or controversy. We adhere to the rule that the enactment of a superseding statute which satisfies all the principles sought in an attack on the prior statute simply moots the case. See Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 97 S.Ct. 1709, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977).

See, also, Bowles v. Blue Lake Development Corporation, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 1094, 1098.

The District Court reserved its judgment on the issue of attorneys’ fees, a matter it is amply able to hear and decide in keeping with the applicable jurisprudence.

We therefore remand the case to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot after an appropriate adjudication as to the reserved issue of attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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