Clark v. Flory, 7257.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 7257.,7257. |
| Citation | 237 F.2d 597 |
| Parties | Mrs. Etta CLARK et al., Appellants, v. C. H. FLORY, State Forester, C. West Jacobs, State Park Director, and Donald B. Cooler, Superintendent, Edisto Beach State Park, Edisto Island, South Carolina, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. Newton Pough, Orangeburg, S. C., and John H. Wrighten, Charleston, S. C., for appellants.
James S. Verner, Asst. Atty. Gen., of South Carolina (T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen., of South Carolina, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and FAHY, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing as moot a suit for injunction to restrain the enforcement of segregation statutes of the State of South Carolina in the use of Edisto Beach State Park. While the action was pending in the District Court, the state legislature passed a statute providing that the park be closed and remain closed until further action should be taken by the legislature with regard thereto. Motion was thereupon made to dismiss the case as moot and in connection with the motion it was admitted by counsel representing the State of South Carolina that the statutes requiring racial segregation in the state parks were unconstitutional and the District Judge so held.
This was in accord with the holding of this court in Department of Conservation & Development, Division of Parks of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Tate, 4 Cir., 231 F.2d 615, 616, certiorari denied Oct. 8, 1956, 352 U.S. 838, 77 S.Ct. 58; Dawson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, affirmed 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133. In the case first cited this court said: "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." In the light of this statement of the law, as well as of the admissions of counsel for the State of South Carolina and the statement by the District Judge, there was no occasion for the entry of a declaratory judgment with respect to the matter; and, in view of the fact that the park had been closed by act of the legislature, there was no basis for the issuance of an injunction with regard to its use. Under such circumstances, the case had become moot and its dismissal was proper.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County
...Board, E.D.La., (Three Judge Court) 197 F.Supp. 649, 655. 7 See also City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 4 Cir., 246 F.2d 425. 8 Clark v. Flory, 4 Cir., 237 F.2d 597. 9 Hampton v. City of Jacksonville, 5 Cir., 304 F.2d 319; Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 5 Cir., 277 F.2d 364; and see Willie v. H......
-
Palmer v. Thompson
...162 F.Supp. 549. Where a public facility is closed to members of all races, any issue as to discrimination becomes moot. Clark v. Flory, U.S. C.A. 4th, 237 F.2d 597; Wood v. Vaughan, D.C.Va., 209 F.Supp. 106; Walker v. Shaw, D.C.S.C., 209 F.Supp. The appellants urge that the City may not ab......
-
Anderson v. City of Albany
...something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive." (Emphasis added.) The recent case of Clark v. Flory, 4 Cir. 1956, 237 F.2d 597, is directly in point, It was there "* * * in view of the fact that the park had been closed by act of the legislature, there was no ......
-
Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, North Carolina
...citizens on the grounds of race. These concessions are in accord with the uniform holding of the courts in recent years. Clark v. Flory, 4 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 597. In light of the declared policy of the City of Greensboro to no longer operate public swimming pools, and to undertake the sal......