Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, No. 6903
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 220 F.2d 386 |
| Parties | Robert M. DAWSON, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, James C. Anderson, President, et al., Appellees. Milton LONESOME et al., Appellants, v. R. Brooke MAXWELL, Chairman, Bernard I. Gonder, H. Lee Hoffman, Sr., J. Miles Lankford, J. Wilson Lord, constituting the Commissioners of Forests and Parks of Maryland, et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | 6904.,No. 6903 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1955 |
220 F.2d 386 (1955)
Robert M. DAWSON, Jr., et al., Appellants,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, James C. Anderson, President, et al., Appellees.
Milton LONESOME et al., Appellants,
v.
R. Brooke MAXWELL, Chairman, Bernard I. Gonder, H. Lee Hoffman, Sr., J. Miles Lankford, J. Wilson Lord, constituting the Commissioners of Forests and Parks of Maryland, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 6903, 6904.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued January 11, 1955.
Decided March 14, 1955.
Robert L. Carter, New York City (Linwood Koger, Jr., Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore, Md., Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Francis X. Gallagher, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, Md., and W. Giles Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Maryland (Thomas N. Biddison, City Sol., Edwin Harlan, Deputy City Sol., Hugo Ricciuti, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, Md., and C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
These appeals were taken from orders of the District Court dismissing actions brought by Negro citizens to obtain declaratory judgments and injunctive relief against the enforcement of racial segregation in the enjoyment of public beaches and bathhouses maintained by the public authorities of the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore at or near that city. Notwithstanding prior decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States striking down the practice of segregation of the races in certain fields, the District Judge, as shown by his opinion, 123 F.Supp. 193, did not feel free to disregard the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Durkee v. Murphy, 181 Md. 259, 29 A.2d 253, and the decision of this court in Boyer v. Garrett, 4 Cir., 183 F.2d 582. Both of these cases are directly in point since they related to the field of public recreation and held, on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256, that segregation of the races in athletic activities in public parks or playgrounds did not violate the 14th Amendment if substantially equal facilities and services were furnished both races.
Our view is that the authority of these cases was swept away by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149, the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...or the Fund has taken an active part include: Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City (Lonesome v. Maxwell), 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, affirmed mem. 350 U.S. 877, 76 S. Ct. 133, 100 L.Ed. 774, and Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Parks, Com. of Va. v. Tate, 4 C......
-
Browder v. Gayle, No. 1147.
...repudiated the separate but equal doctrine as applied to recreational centers. Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, 387. Its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133. The doctrine has further been repudiated in holdings that the ......
-
State v. Cooke
...quarters of a century ago. Puitt v. Gaston County Commissioners, 94 N.C. 709. Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386; Lawrence v. Hancock, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 1004; Tate v. Department of Conservation and Development, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 53; Culver v. City of War......
-
Baker v. State, No. 98-032.
...bear the imprint of newly enunciated doctrine." See Watson, 373 U.S. at 529, 83 S.Ct. 1314; Dawson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 220 F.2d 386 (4th Cir.), aff'd, 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133, 100 L.Ed. 774 (1955). Unlike Watson, our decision declares decidedly new The concurring and di......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...or the Fund has taken an active part include: Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City (Lonesome v. Maxwell), 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, affirmed mem. 350 U.S. 877, 76 S. Ct. 133, 100 L.Ed. 774, and Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Parks, Com. of Va. v. Tate, 4 C......
-
Browder v. Gayle, No. 1147.
...repudiated the separate but equal doctrine as applied to recreational centers. Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386, 387. Its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133. The doctrine has further been repudiated in holdings that the ......
-
State v. Cooke
...quarters of a century ago. Puitt v. Gaston County Commissioners, 94 N.C. 709. Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 4 Cir., 220 F.2d 386; Lawrence v. Hancock, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 1004; Tate v. Department of Conservation and Development, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 53; Culver v. City of War......
-
Baker v. State, No. 98-032.
...bear the imprint of newly enunciated doctrine." See Watson, 373 U.S. at 529, 83 S.Ct. 1314; Dawson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 220 F.2d 386 (4th Cir.), aff'd, 350 U.S. 877, 76 S.Ct. 133, 100 L.Ed. 774 (1955). Unlike Watson, our decision declares decidedly new The concurring and di......