Schempp v. School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania
| Decision Date | 22 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 24119. |
| Citation | 195 F. Supp. 518 |
| Parties | Edward Lewis SCHEMPP, Sidney Gerber Schempp, individually and as parents and natural guardians of Ellory Frank Schempp, Roger Wade Schempp and Donna Kay Schempp v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, James F. Koehler, O. H. English, Eugene Stull and M. Edward Northam. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Henry W. Sawyer, III, of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Wayland H. Elsbree, of White & Williams, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
C. Brewster Rhoads, Philip H. Ward, III, of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., Percival R. Rieder, Abington, Pa., for defendants.
Theodore Mann, Philadelphia, Pa., for American Jewish Congress, amicus curiae.
Anne X. Alpern, Atty. Gen., by John D. Killian, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth of Pa.
Before BIGGS, Circuit Judge, KIRKPATRICK, Senior District Judge, and KRAFT, District Judge.
On September 17, 1959 we entered a judgment declaring unconstitutional Section 1516 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code of March 10, 1949 as amended, 24 P.S. § 15-1516. See D.C.1959, 177 F.Supp. 398. On November 12, 1959 the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 23, 1959 they filed a motion in this court pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ. Proc., 28 U.S.C., for relief from the judgment entered following our opinion in this case. The motion was based on the fact that Act No. 700 of the Laws of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, passed at the Session of 1959 (effective December 17, 1959), and approved by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 17, 1959, amended the Act of March 10, 1949 (P.L. 30), relating to Bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania. The motion was denied by this court on June 9, 1960 for want of jurisdiction. D.C., 184 F. Supp. 381.
On October 24, 1960 the Supreme Court handed down a per curiam opinion and order, 364 U.S. 298, 81 S.Ct. 268, 5 L.Ed.2d 89, vacating our judgment and remanding the case for such further proceedings as might be appropriate in the light of Act No. 700.
On January 4, 1961 a motion was filed by the plaintiffs for leave to file a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d), Fed. R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., to amend the complaint by striking from the caption the words "Ellory Frank Schempp", and by deleting paragraphs 8 and 12, and by adding to paragraph 11 the words "as further amended by the Act of December...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gomez v. Wilson
...Ford Motor Co., 269 F.2d 18, 25 (6th Cir. 1959); Howard v. Jennings, 141 F.2d 193, 195 (8th Cir. 1944); Schempp v. School Dist. of Abington Township, 195 F.Supp. 518, 519 (E.D.Pa.1961). 34E. g., Griffin v. County School Bd., 377 U.S. 218, 226-227, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1964); Unit......
- School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp Murray Iii v. Curlett, s. 142 and 119
-
Sincock v. Roman
...treating the "Motion to Implement" as complaint the suit is without equity. 4 See and compare Schempp v. School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, 195 F.Supp. 518 (E.D.Pa.1961). 5 Section 603(a) and Section 603(b) of S.B. 332, which provides for 8 representative districts in Wilmi......
-
Schempp v. School District of Abington Township, Pa.
...201 F. Supp. 815 ... Edward L. SCHEMPP et al ... SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PA., et al ... Civ. A. No. 24119 ... United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania ... February 1, 1962.201 F. Supp. 816 Henry W. Sawyer, III, Wayland H. Elsbree, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs ... C. Brewster Rhoads, Sidney L. Wickenhaver, Philip H. Ward, III, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., Percival R. Rieder, ... ...
-
Lawyer Sawyer.
...203, 208 n. 2 (1963) (quoting 24 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. [sections] 11-1122 (West 1999)). (13) Schempp, 364 U.S. 298, 298 (1960). (14) See 195 F. Supp. 518 (E.D. Pa. 1961) (allowing plaintiffs to amend their pleading in light of the statutory amendment). To complete the procedural picture, see......