From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Board of Education

U.S.
Apr 20, 1971
402 U.S. 47 (1971)

Summary

holding that no Article III case or controversy exists where the parties to an action desire "precisely the same result"

Summary of this case from Kay v. Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp.

Opinion

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 444.

Argued October 13, 1970 Decided April 20, 1971

Since both parties in this action challenging a school desegregation plan seek the same result, viz., a holding that North Carolina's Anti-Busing Law is constitutional, there is no Art. III case or controversy. Additionally, on the facts of this case, no direct appeal to this Court lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

312 F. Supp. 503, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Whiteford S. Blakeney argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was William H. Booe.

William J. Waggoner argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Benjamin S. Horack.

Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Leonard filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.


Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, ante, p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U.S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U.S.C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from "any civil action, suit or proceeding required . . . to be heard . . . by a district court of three judges," 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Moore v. Board of Education

U.S.
Apr 20, 1971
402 U.S. 47 (1971)

holding that no Article III case or controversy exists where the parties to an action desire "precisely the same result"

Summary of this case from Kay v. Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp.

finding "no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III" where both parties agreed the law was constitutional and required setting aside a district court order

Summary of this case from Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Constellium Rolled Prods. Ravenswood

finding no case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution where "both litigants desire[d] precisely the same result"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.

finding no case or controversy where "both litigants desire precisely the same result"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Mariano

finding no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution where both litigants desired the same result

Summary of this case from City of Cincinnati v. Ky. Transp. Cabinet

finding no “case or controversy” where both parties to the suit had argued that the statute was constitutional and urged that a desegregation order be set aside

Summary of this case from Barry v. City of N.Y.

considering "the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional," and holding "[t]here is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution"

Summary of this case from Pool v. City of Hous.

stating that when "both litigants desire precisely the same result," there is "no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution"

Summary of this case from OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.

In Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 47, 91 S.Ct. 1292, 28 L.Ed.2d 590 (1971), the Court dismissed an appeal wherein appellants had sought review of a three-judge district court's decision that a portion of a North Carolina anti-busing statute was unconstitutional.

Summary of this case from Granfield v. Catholic University of America

dismissing case when both sides argued that a law was constitutional and should be upheld

Summary of this case from League of Women Voters v. Sec'y of State
Case details for

Moore v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:MOORE ET AL. v . CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 20, 1971

Citations

402 U.S. 47 (1971)

Citing Cases

Transouth Financial Corp. of Fla. v. Johnson

Third, and perhaps most important, "[t]he court must dismiss a case where the cooperation of the plaintiff…

OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C.

Accordingly, there is no Article III case or controversy when the parties desire "precisely the same result."…