LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4386 and the Black Advisory Council, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Joseph Golding, Ronald Britton, Joyce Sherrod, and Joseph Reed, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 30, 1987.
Rehearing Denied October 28, 1987.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Charles Tighe, Rick Strange, Julie E. Vaughan, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Midland, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
Tom E. Johnson, Midland, Tex., for intervenor-M-Pac.
Joanne DeWitt, Midland, Tex., for intervenor-Midland Women's Polit. Caucus.
Sam Flores, Midland, Tex., for intervenor-Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Rolando L. Rios, San Antonio, Tex., William L. Garrett, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Ernest Davis, for intervenor-Our Lacy of Guadalupe.
Roy Marshall, Midland, Tex., for Parents in Control.
Oralia Corrales, for intervenor-Mexican American Advisory Council.
Richard A. Mendenhall, Midland, Tex., for Midland Awareness.
T. Gerald Treece, Houston, Tex., for all intervenors.
C. Robert Heath, Ann Clark Snell, Austin, Tex., for amicus on behalf of defendant-appellant — Texas Assoc. of School Boards.
Harvey Cargill, Jr., Deborah Sterling Burleson, Asst. City Atty., Abilene, Tex., for amicus on behalf of defendant-appellant — City of Abilene.
George J. Korbel, Jesse Roy Botello, San Antonio, Tex., for amicus on behalf of plaintiff-appellee — Mexican American Legislative Caucus.
Frank R. Parker, Washington, D.C., for amicus on behalf of plaintiff-appellee — Civil Rights Under Law.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, WISDOM, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, HILL and JONES, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Midland Independent School Board brought this appeal only to urge that the legislative deference owed by the federal courts required that one of the Board's redistricting proposals be put into effect rather than the district court's own plan. We have reconsidered the case en banc, vacating the panel opinion reported at 812 F.2d 1494, and now reject the appeal on the ground that these plans of the Board were contrary...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
