Oliver v. Mayor and Councilmen of Town of Savannah Beach

Citation346 F.2d 133
Decision Date20 May 1965
Docket NumberNo. 21814.,21814.
PartiesG. W. OLIVER, D. P. Averitt and Mrs. Louise W. Attaway, Appellants, v. The MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN OF the TOWN OF SAVANNAH BEACH, TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA, et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Aaron Kravitch, John J. Sullivan, John Wright Jones, Phyllis Kravitch, Savannah, Ga., for appellants.

Alex A. Lawrence, Anton F. Solms, Jr., A. Pratt Adams, Jr., Savannah, Ga., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS* and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Chief Judge.

This is a companion case to Henry H. Glisson, et al, v. The Mayor and Councilmen of the Town of Savannah Beach, et al., 346 F.2d 135 decided this day. The cases are decided separately because a different question is presented by reason of the different standing of the respective plaintiffs.

In the Glisson case, the plaintiffs complained of a municipal charter provision of the charter of the City of Savannah Beach, Georgia, that provided for the right of non-residents of the municipality who, nevertheless, owned property therein and who resided in Chatham County, to vote in municipal elections. The plaintiffs Glisson, et al, were permanent residents of the city of Savannah Beach. Those plaintiffs attacked the right of Chatham County residents owning property in Savannah Beach to participate in Savannah Beach city elections. The plaintiffs here are residents of another county, Bulloch County, Georgia, adjacent to Chatham County, and they also own property in the city of Savannah Beach. As such property owners they also attack the validity of the charter amendments which permit non-residents of the municipality who own property to vote. They base their attack on the discrimination that permits non-resident owners to vote if they are residents of Chatham County, but denies them the right to vote if they reside in other Georgia counties.

The trial court made joint findings of fact covering both cases, with separate conclusions of law. In this case, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' purpose in filing the suit was in fact to support the contention of the residents of Savannah Beach who were the plaintiffs in the other action, seeking to hold invalid those parts of the amended charter giving the right to vote to any non-residents owning property in the municipality, and thereupon held that if the plaintiffs succeeded in their effort, they would destroy the only right which, as discriminatees, they may have had standing to claim, that is, the elimination of the difference between them as property owners, non-residents of Chatham County, and the property owners who are residents in that county.

Upon a careful reading of the complaint in this case, which, incidentally, was filed by the same counsel representing Glisson, et al, in the other case, we conclude that the trial court correctly construed the complaint. Although the complaint alleged a discrimination between the plaintiffs here who do not reside in Chatham County but who own property in Savannah Beach, and other property owners who reside in Chatham County and are thus given the right to vote, no relief is sought putting an end to that discrimination. What is actually sought is "that the statutes of the Legislature of Georgia as set out in said petition with reference to the registration of voters, right to hold office and election of Mayor and Councilmen at Savannah Beach, Georgia, for the reason set out in said petition, be decreed and declared to be illegal, void and unconstitutional."

Further relief sought is that "a declaratory judgment issue * * * striking from the present list...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Cantwell v. Hudnut, Civ. A. No. IP 75-721-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • September 9, 1976
    ...11 The rights of property owners who lived outside the county were not adjudicated because of a standing problem. Oliver v. Mayor et al., (5th Cir. 1965) 346 F.2d 133. 12 The extent of the fit was shown by evidence in that case indicating that 64% of the value of the real estate in the city......
  • United States v. Cohan, 72-1355.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 11, 1972
    ...18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967); Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 5 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 123; Oliver v. Mayor and Councilmen of the Town of Savannah Beach, 5 Cir. 1965, 346 F.2d 133; and Strickland v. Burns, M.D. Tenn., 1966, 256 F.Supp. 824. These cases interpreted the three-judge requi......
  • Crapps v. DUVAL COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTH. OF DUVAL CTY., FLA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • June 11, 1970
    ...L.Ed.2d 643 (1967); Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967); Oliver v. Mayor and Councilmen of Town of Savannah Beach, Tybee Island, Georgia, 346 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1965). 4. Counsel for the parties are directed to negotiate new standards for determining residency......
  • Glisson v. Mayor and Councilmen of Town of Savannah Beach
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 20, 1965
    ...and PHILLIPS* and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. TUTTLE, Chief Judge. This and the companion case G. W. Oliver, et al., v. The Mayor and Councilmen of the Town of Savannah Beach, et al., 346 F.2d 133, decided this day, represent the latest episode in the protracted quarrel between the permanent re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT