WILLIAMS v. BROWN
446 U.S. 236 (1980)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

WILLIAMS v. BROWN, 446 U.S. 236 (1980)

446 U.S. 236

WILLIAMS ET AL. v. BROWN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 78-357.

Argued March 19, 1979. Reargued October 29, 1979.
Decided April 22, 1980.

575 F.2d 298, vacated and remanded.

William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.

Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.

    It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, see ante, p. 94.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante, p. 103.]

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.

I, of course, must accept the Court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the

Page 446 U.S. 236, 237

merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.

Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.

Page 446 U.S. 236, 238

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.