Otis v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 07 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2221. |
| Citation | 294 F. Supp. 813 |
| Parties | Marshall V. OTIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lon V. BOYD, County Judge, Quarterly Court, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
John S. McLellan, D. Bruce Shine, Kingsport, Tenn., for plaintiffs.
Charles M. Gore, Gore, Ladd & Gillenwater, Luther H. Icenhour, Jr., County Atty., for Sullivan County, Tenn., Bristol, Tenn., for defendants.
Paul E. Jennings, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Tenn., Nashville, Tenn., for State defendants.
Before PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, TAYLOR, Chief District Judge, and NEESE, District Judge.
This is an action by seven citizens, taxpayers and voters of Sullivan County, Tennessee, seeking reapportionment of the Quarterly County Court of that county. The case was heard on briefs and oral arguments on October 29, 1968, before a District Court of three judges convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284. Plaintiffs claim that T.C.A. §§ 19-102 and 19-103 and the last grammatical sentence of Article VI, § 15 of the Constitution of Tennessee, are void as applied to Sullivan County in that plaintiffs and other citizens of that county are deprived of rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs further assert that these code sections and this provision of the Constitution of Tennessee, together with Public Acts of 1835-36, Chapter 246, § 3, result in an unconstitutional malapportionment of the Quarterly County Court of the county. Injunctive relief is sought to restrain the enforcement of these statutes and the provision of the State Constitution.
Defendants do not deny that as a matter of law the Quarterly County Court of Sullivan County as it is presently constituted and organized is malapportioned under controlling law. Defendants contend, however, that a reapportionment plan adopted under a resolution passed May 20, 1968, by the Quarterly County Court of Sullivan County comports with the Constitution of the United States and the applicable decisional law thereunder. This resolution was adopted pursuant to Chapter 599, Public Acts of 1968, and by its terms will not become effective until 1972.
Upon consideration, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:
(1) That the Quarterly County Court of Sullivan County, Tennessee, as presently constituted is malapportioned and such malapportionment is offensive to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45.
(2) That T.C.A. §§ 19-102 and 19-103 and the last grammatical sentence of Article VI, § 15 of the Constitution of Tennessee are invalid as applied to the Quarterly County Court of Sullivan County, as presently constituted. Hyden v. Baker, 286 F.Supp. 475 (M.D. Tenn.).
(3) That under federal decisional law the provision of Chapter 599, Public Acts of 1968, deferring reapportionment of Quarterly County Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Washington County
...of rights secured by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Otis v. Boyd (D.C. Cir.), 294 F.Supp. 813, the Federal District Court approved a reapportionment plan for Sullivan County, Tennessee, which allowed 48 Justices of the Peace fro......
-
Sudekum v. Hayes, 19632.
...rule. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45; Bennett v. Elliott, 294 F.Supp. 808 (M.D.Tenn.); Otis v. Boyd, 294 F.Supp. 813 (E.D. Tenn.); Hyden v. Baker, 286 F.Supp. 475 In the present case District Judge William E. Miller entered a judgment dividing Sumner Cou......