McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 21567.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21567.,21567. |
| Citation | 345 F.2d 720 |
| Parties | Sarah Louise McCOY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellants, v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Norman Amaker, New York City, A. P. Tureaud, New Orleans, La., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.
William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., George Ponder, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.
For the second time in this case and for the seventh time in recent years, we hold that a state agency is not immune from a suit to enjoin it from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, and the individual members of the state board need not be joined as party defendant. Again we repeat that the State cannot by statute or constitution make the State Board of Education a "special agency" free from suits to enjoin the board's actions in violation of federally guaranteed rights. McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 915; Louisiana State Board of Education v. Baker, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 911.
There is no merit to other contentions of the Attorney General. In determining what is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), courts look not to terminology, but to "the substantial effect of the order made." Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U.S. 188, 63 S.Ct. 163, 87 L.Ed. 176; Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 55 S.Ct. 310, 79 L.Ed. 440; General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408; Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir. 1948, 166 F.2d 546.
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions that the district court take prompt, appropriate action, consistent with this per curiam opinion, to grant the requested relief.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Integranet Physician Res., Inc. v. Tex. Indep. Providers, L.L.C.
...characterized as a sanction).6 Qureshi v. United States , 600 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 2010).7 Id.8 See McCoy v. La. State Bd. of Ed. , 345 F.2d 720, 720 (5th Cir. 1965) (internal quotation marks omitted).9 Id. See also 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 29......
-
Roberts v. St. Regis Paper Co.
...to litigate in state court was injunctive in nature and thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)); McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 345 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir.1965) (appealability of order depends, not on terminology, but on substantial effect of order); United States v. Lyn......
-
Diversified Mortg. Investors v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. of New York
...purposes of § 1292, we must look "not to terminology, but to 'the substantial effect of the order made.' " McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 345 F.2d 720, 721 (5 Cir. 1965), and authorities there cited. It is the operative facts giving rise to an enforceable right which constitut......
-
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Quanta Storage, Inc.
...U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), courts look not to terminology, but to the substantial effect of the order made." McCoy v. La. State Bd. of Educ. , 345 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we have held that § 1292(a)(1) "applies to orders that are directed to a ......