833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987), 87-2150, In re Little Rock School Dist.
|Docket Nº:||87-2150, 87-2363.|
|Citation:||833 F.2d 112|
|Party Name:||In re LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 1987|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted Nov. 3, 1987.
Supplemental Opinion filed Feb. 9, 1988.
P.A. Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for Judge Woods in mandamus.
Phil Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., for Little Rock School Dist.
Sam Perroni, Little Rock, Ark., for Rayburn.
Phillip Lyon, Chicago, Ill., for North Little Rock.
Before HEANEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
The two proceedings captioned above, together with a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of the many important issues presented deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to take place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court?
No. 87-2363 is an appeal by LRSD from the District Court's 1 order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Court's order.
It is our understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the election.
No. 87-2150 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to
declare that Judge Woods should have disqualified himself. In the alternative, it is suggested that we simply direct that another judge be assigned to this case. In addition to the petition for mandamus, various appeals also include suggestions for the disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic relief is appropriate.
Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicus curiae in a case called Clark v. Board of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-155. The District Court first consolidated Clark with the instant case, then...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP