LOVE ET AL.
v.
GRIFFITH ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Texas Democratic Party officials excluded Black voters from a primary election in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, and voters sought an injunction to prevent the discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the case on mootness grounds, holding that because the election had already occurred before the appeal was decided, the cause of action had ceased to exist and no injunctive relief could be granted, even though the underlying constitutional violation was allegedly serious.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity alleging that the plaintiffs are qualified electors residing in Houston, Texas, and of the Democratic political faith; that on January 27, 1921, the City Democratic Executive Committee of Houston made and published a rule that negroes would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic City Primary Election to be held on February 9, 1921; that the Committee and Judges of Election threatened to enforce the rule, contrary to the Constitution of the United States; and praying an injunction to restrain the Committee and Judges of Election from carrying out their threats. The bill was filed on February 3, 1921.
On February 5, 1921, it was demurred to generally, the demurrer maintaining that the rule did not infringe the Fifteenth Amendment.
On February 7, 1921, the demurrer was sustained and the bill was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, but that Court held that at the date of its decision, months after the election, the cause of action had ceased to exist and that the appeal would not be entertained on the question of costs alone. It therefore dismissed the appeal with costs. Error is assigned here on the ground that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the discrimination which was made the basis of the complaint, and that the decision denied the plaintiffs their constitutional rights.
When as here there is a plain assertion of federal rights in the lower court, local rules as to how far it shall be reviewed on appeal do not necessarily prevail. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. Whether the right was denied or not given due recognition by the Court of Civil Appeals is a question as to which the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke our judgment. Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22. If the case stood here as it stood before the court of first instance it would present a grave question of constitutional law and we should be astute to avoid hindrances in the way of taking it up. But that is not the situation. The rule promulgated by the Democratic Executive Committee was for a single election only that had taken place long before the decision of the Appellate Court. No constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in error were infringed by holding that the cause of action had ceased to exist. The bill was for an injunction that could not be granted at that time. There was no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was prayed.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
State v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1935)…ule clearly arbitrary discriminations are held to invalidate. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415, 64 L. Ed. 989, 990, 40 Sup. Ct. 560; Airway Electric Appliance Corp. v. Day, 266 U. S. 71, 85, 69 L. Ed. 169, 177, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; Schlosinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 230, 240, 70 L. Ed. 557, 564, 43 A. L. R. 1224, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 260. To begin with, I cannot agree that the statute makes the “Chain of stores” the unit for the purpose of taxation. The tax laid by Section 4 of…
-
State v. Knott, 135 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1938)…avings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 Sup. Ct. 584, 42 L. Ed. 1037; County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. 385; Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 S. 412, 40 Sup. Ct. 560, 64 L. Ed. 989; Airway Electric Appliance Corp. v. Day, 266 U. S. 71, 45 Sup. Ct. 12, 69 L. Ed. 169; Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 230, 46 Sup. Ct. 260, 70 L. Ed. 557. The Act under review, unlike the Georgia Act, treats mutuals and stock companies writing fire and indemnity insurance alike. Its main purpose when read in pari…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Amrep Corp., 358 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1978)…8 L.Ed. 1411 (1934); Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct. 678, 71 L.Ed. 1165 (1927); Hanover Fire Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494, 47 S.Ct. 179, 71 L.Ed. 372 (1924); Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. Day, 266 U.S. 71, 45 S.Ct. 12, 69 L.Ed. 169 (1924); Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U.S. 400, 30 S.Ct. 287, 54 L.Ed. 536 (1910); Sholley, Corporate Taxpayers and the Equal Protection Clause, 31 Ill.L.Rev. 4 63 (1936). The Wheeling decision represents a fruition of the historical…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ward v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Love Cnty., 253 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1920)
- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1923)