COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT v. CAMPBELL

No. 90-5178.

962 F.2d 1517 (1992)

COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT, an unincorporated association of students, faculty, and other members of the university community of Oklahoma State University, including the following members; Richard L. Cummings; Charles Edgley, members of the faculty of Oklahoma State University, individually and as members of the Committee for the First Amendment; James Jude Gramlich; Amy L. Wilsey, individually and as members of the Student Union Activities Board; Kimberly McCoy, individually and as President of the Student Government Association of Oklahoma State University; Tad Cooper, individually and as a student at Oklahoma State University; Mendle E. Adams, individually and as Campus Chaplain for the United Ministry to Oklahoma State University, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John R. CAMPBELL, individually and in his official capacity as President of Oklahoma State University; H. Jerrell Chesney, individually and in his official capacity as Executive Secretary of the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, and Carolyn Savage, L.E. Stringer, Jack Craig, Austin Kenyon, Bill Braum, John W. Montgomery, Jimmie Thomas, Robert D. Robbins, Ed Malzahn, individually and as members of the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges; Ronald Beer, as Vice-President of Student Services of Oklahoma State University; Tom Keys, as director of the Student Union, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 6, 1992.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Laura E. Frossard, Tulsa, Okl. (Micheal Salem, Norman, Okl., with her on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Burck Bailey, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Barbara G. Bowersox with him on the brief) of Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, for defendants-appellees.

Before BALDOCK and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District Judge.


BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

"How much contrition should be expected of a defendant is hard for us to say. This surely is a question better addressed to the discretion of the trial court." United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 634, 73 S.Ct. 894, 898, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953).

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive (and later monetary) relief against various defendants1 in response to...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases