Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
575 F.2d 298, vacated and remanded.
William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.
Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante, p. 103.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.
I, of course, must accept the Court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the [446 U.S. 236, 237] merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94. [446 U.S. 236, 238]
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 446 U.S. 236
Docket No: No. 78-357
Argued: March 19, 1979
Decided: April 22, 1980
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)