Smith v. Ladner

S.D. Mississippi

Smith v. Ladner

260 F. Supp. 918, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7372

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

DocketCiv. A. 3905J

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 260 F. Supp. 918 (Smith v. Ladner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Ladner, 260 F. Supp. 918, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7372 (S.D. Miss. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHN R. BROWN, Acting Chief Judge.

Whereas Honorable Elbert P. Tuttle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is outside of the Circuit and temporarily unable to perform his duties as Chief Judge; and whereas the undersigned is a Circuit Judge in active service, present in the Circuit, under 70 years of age, next in precedence, and able and qualified to act as Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 45(d); and whereas in my judgment, the public interest so requires ; and

The Honorable Dan M. Russell, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to whom an application for injunction and other relief has been presented in the above-styled and numbered cause, having notified me that the action is one required by Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three Judges, I, John R. Brown, Acting Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, hereby designate the Honorable James P. Coleman, United States Circuit Judge, and the Honorable William Harold Cox, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to serve with Judge Russell as members of, and with him to constitute the said Court to hear and determine the action.

This designation and composition of the three-judge court is not a prejudgment, express or implied, as to whether this is properly a case for a three-judge rather than a one-judge court. This is a matter best, determined by the three-judge court as this enables a simultaneous appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court without the delay, awkwardness, and administrative insufficiency of a proceeding by way of mandamus from either the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or both, directed against the Chief Judge of the Circuit, the presiding District Judge, or both. The parties will be afforded the opportunity to brief and argue all such questions before the three-judge panel either preliminarily or on the trial of the merits, or otherwise, as that Court thinks appropriate.

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

JOHN R. BROWN, Acting Chief Judge.

Whereas Honorable Elbert P. Tuttle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is outside of the Circuit and temporarily unable to perform his duties as Chief Judge; and whereas the undersigned is a Circuit Judge in active service, present in the Circuit, under 70 years of age, next in precedence, and able and qualified to act as Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 45(d); and whereas in my judgment, the public interest so requires ; and

The Honorable Dan M. Russell, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to whom an application for injunction and other relief has been presented in the above-styled and numbered cause, having notified me that the action is one required by Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three Judges, I, John R. Brown, Acting Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, hereby designate the Honorable James P. Coleman, United States Circuit Judge, and the Honorable William Harold Cox, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to serve with Judge Russell as members of, and with him to constitute the said Court to hear and determine the action.

This designation and composition of the three-judge court is not a prejudgment, express or implied, as to whether this is properly a case for a three-judge rather than a one-judge court. This is a matter best, determined by the three-judge court as this enables a simultaneous appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court without the delay, awkwardness, and administrative insufficiency of a proceeding by way of mandamus from either the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or both, directed against the Chief Judge of the Circuit, the presiding District Judge, or both. The parties will be afforded the opportunity to brief and argue all such questions before the three-judge panel either preliminarily or on the trial of the merits, or otherwise, as that Court thinks appropriate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 F. Supp. 918, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-ladner-mssd-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack