231 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1956), 7129, Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Parks, Com. of Va. v. Tate

Docket Nº:7129.
Citation:231 F.2d 615
Party Name:DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF PARKS, of the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Raymond V. Long, Randolph Odell, J. Lindsey, and Phillip Armstrong, Appellants, v. Lavinia G. TATE, Samuel E. Robinson, Leon A. Woodhouse and Otis B. Watts, Appellees.
Case Date:April 09, 1956
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 615

231 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1956)

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF PARKS, of the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Raymond V. Long, Randolph Odell, J. Lindsey, and Phillip Armstrong, Appellants,

v.

Lavinia G. TATE, Samuel E. Robinson, Leon A. Woodhouse and Otis B. Watts, Appellees.

No. 7129.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 9, 1956

Argued March 21, 1956.

Henry T. Wickham, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, and J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Virginia, for appellants.

Victor J. Ashe, Norfolk, Va., and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Richmond, Va. (J. Hugo Madison, Norfolk, Va., James A. Overton, Portsmouth, Va., and Oliver W. Hill, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

Page 616

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in an action instituted by Negro citizens of Virginia against the Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Parks, of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the individual park commissioners to enjoin threatened racial discrimination in the operation of Seashore State Park. Decree was entered therein enjoining the defendants, their 'agents, lessees and successors in office' from denying to 'any person of the Negro race, by reason of his race and color, the right to use and enjoy the facilities' of the park. The decree further provided 'that if said Park or any part thereof is leased, the lease must not, directly or indirectly operate so as to discriminate against the members of any race'. The defendants have appealed complaining especially of the provision last quoted.

We think that the decree appealed from is correct for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge and that little need be added thereto. See 133 F.Supp. 53. It is perfectly clear under recent decisions that citizens have the right to the use of the public parks of the state without discrimination on the ground of race. Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, affirmed 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133; Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 141. And we think it equally clear that this right may not be abridged by the leasing of the parks with ownership retained in the state. See Lawrence v. Hancock, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 1004, 1009; Muir v. Louisville Park Theatrical Ass'n, 347 U.S. 971, 74 S.Ct. 783, 98 L.Ed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP