Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas Dist.

4 Citing cases

  1. City of Combes v. East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corp.

    244 F. Supp. 2d 778 (S.D. Tex. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a water supply corporation that has the power of eminent domain but lacks the power to assess taxes within its boundaries or to issue tax-exempt bonds does not qualify as a "political subdivision" subject to the Voting Rights Act

    Few federal courts have had occasion to consider whether the Voting Rights Act covers entities such as the East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation. The plaintiffs present to this tribunal three cases which, they argue, sustain their claim: Smith v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1997); Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas Dist., 890 F. Supp. 547 (N.D.Miss. 1995); and State of Texas v. U.S.A., 866 F. Supp. 20 (D.D.C. 1994). After careful consideration of these cases and their holdings, this court concludes that they do not.

  2. Ritter v. Bennett

    23 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    The failure of state election officials to follow state law is not necessarily a § 5 claim. See Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas District, 890 F. Supp. 547, 551 (N.D.Miss. 1995); Montgomery v. Leflore County Republican Executive Committee, 776 F. Supp. 1142, 1145 (N.D.Miss. 1991). As noted earlier, § 5 covers only changes in procedure with respect to voting that a state enacts or administers. "One would not normally conclude that a state `enacts or administers' a new voting procedure every time a state official deviates from the state's required procedures."

  3. DeJulio v. Georgia

    127 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (N.D. Ga. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that there exists no parallel provision to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, to regulate admission of amicus briefs in district court, and therefore leave to file is entirely discretionary

    A three-judge district court, however, is not required if the Court concludes that the plaintiff's Section 5 claims are insubstantial, frivolous, or clearly without merit. United States v. Saint Landry Parish School Bd., 601 F.2d 859, 865 (5th Cir. 1979);Broussard v. Perez, 572 F.2d 1113, 1118 (5th Cir. 1978); Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas Dist., 890 F. Supp. 547, 549 (N.D.Miss. 1995); Montgomery v. Leflore County Republican Executive Committee, 776 F. Supp. 1142, 1144-45 (N.D.Miss. 1991); Miller v. Daniels, 509 F. Supp. 400, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Webber v. White, 422 F. Supp. 416, 423-25 (N.D.Tex. 1976).

  4. Smith v. Clark

    711 So. 2d 272 (La. Ct. App. 1996)

    Furthermore, even with respect to Federal law, "preclearance," under proper circumstances, can be retroactive. See Moore v. Caledonia Natural Gas District, 890 F. Supp. 547 (N.D. Miss. 1995). Because there was no legal impediment to the conduct of this election, we conclude that appellant's claim of lack of preclearance does not allow appellant to bring an election contest under the provisions of La.R.S. 18:1401 et seq.