Moore v. Board of Education
| Decision Date | 20 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG,No. 444,444 |
| Citation | 28 L.Ed.2d 590,91 S.Ct. 1292,402 U.S. 47 |
| Parties | Mrs. Robert Lee MOORE et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Since both parties in this section challenging a school desegregation plan seek the same result, viz., a holding that North Carolina's Anti-Busing Law is constitutional, there is no Art. III case or controversy. Additionally, on the facts of this case, no direct appeal to this Court lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
312 F.Supp. 503, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., for Mrs. Robert Lee Moore and others.
William J. Waggoner, Charlotte, N.C., for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and others.
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43, 91 S.Ct. 1284, 28 L.Ed.2d 586. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U.S. 803, 91 S.Ct. 11, 27 L.Ed.2d 34 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti- busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U.S.C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from 'any civil action, suit or proceeding required * * * to be heard * * * by a district court of three judges,' 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia
... ... Broaddus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., The State Board of Education and The Supt. of Public Instruction, L. Paul Byrne, Richmond, Va., Henrico Co. Bd. of Supervisors, for defendants ... MEMORANDUM ... ...
-
Gen. Offshore Corp. v. Farrelly
...vigor with which this case has been litigated amply demonstrates that it is not collusive. See, e.g., Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ, 402 U.S. 47, 48 (1971) (per curiam); Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 251, 255 (1850). Likewise, there is no worry here that the plaintiff seeks ......
-
Ofs Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., No. 07-10200.
...III case or controversy when the parties desire "precisely the same result." Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 47, 48, 91 S.Ct. 1292, 1293, 28 L.Ed.2d 590 (1971) (per curiam). This Constitutional mandate imposes serious restrictions on our court's ability to hear c......
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood, LLC
...agreement about both the merits and the remedy deprived courts of Article III adverseness. Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. , 402 U.S. 47, 47–48, 91 S.Ct. 1292, 28 L.Ed.2d 590 (1971) (finding "no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III" where both parties agreed the la......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687, 119 S.Ct. 1624, 143 L.Ed.2d 882 (1999), 939-42, 994, 1250 Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. 402 U .S. 47, 91 S.Ct. 1292, 28 L.Ed.2d 590 (1971), 676 Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977), 130, 372......
-
The dark side of efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the expropriation of American Indian lands.
...have no jurisdiction in feigned cases since there is no "case or controversy." See, e.g., Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 47, 48 (1971) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because of the absence of a "case or controversy"); Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 250, 255 (1......