From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 28, 1959
268 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1959)

Opinion

No. 17438.

June 30, 1959. Rehearing Denied July 28, 1959.

John Silard, Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., J. Taylor Phillips, Macon, Ga., for appellants.

Benning M. Grice, Macon, Ga., Julian C. Sipple, Savannah, Ga., Harold C. Heiss, Russell B. Day, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before JONES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.


This is a suit for civil contempt brought by five Negro firemen against the Railroad and Brotherhood based upon a prior consent injunction prohibiting racial discrimination in the job assignments of Negro firemen employed by Appellee Railroad.

The background facts, analysis of issues, and reasoning have been fully and accurately set forth by District Judge Bootle, and his fact findings amply satisfy the clearly erroneous test of F.R.Civ. P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A. Accordingly we affirm the judgment finding no discrimination under these circumstances on the basis of his reported opinion below. Washington v. Central of Georgia Ry., D.C.M.D.Ga. 1959, 174 F. Supp. 33. See also Oliphant v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 6 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 359, certiorari denied, 1959, 359 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 648, 3 L.Ed. 2d 636.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Marshall v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jul 28, 1959
268 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1959)
Case details for

Marshall v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

Case Details

Full title:Al MARSHALL et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jul 28, 1959

Citations

268 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1959)

Citing Cases

F.T.C. v. Blaine

In order to grant movants the order requested it must appear by a legal preponderance of the evidence that…

Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ.

The Board maintains, however, that the evidence adduced by the petitioner is not of a "clear and convincing"…