UNITED STATES
v.
THOMAS, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF WASHINGTON PARISH, LOUISIANA, 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.
The United States challenged a stay order issued by the Court of Appeals that had blocked a District Court judgment against Curtis M. Thomas, the Registrar of Voters in Washington Parish, Louisiana, in a voting rights case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the stay order, and affirmed the District Court's judgment against Thomas, applying the principles established in its companion decision in United States v. Raines.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Pursuant to its order of January 26, 1960, 361 U. S. 950, the Court has before it (1) the application of the United States for an order vacating the order of the Court of Appeals, dated January 21, 1960, staying the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, dated January 11, 1960; and (2) the petition of the United States for a writ of certio-rari. to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent, Curtis M. Thomas, Registrar of Voters, Washington Parish, Louisiana. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments submitted by both sides, the Court makes the following disposition of these matters:
The petition for certiorari is granted. Upon the opinion, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the District Court and the decision of this Court rendered today in No. 64, United States v. Raines, ante, p. 17, the aforesaid stay order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent Thomas is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…foot, 364 U. S. 339. By statute an action for preventive relief is now given the United States in certain voting cases. 71 Stat. 637, 42 U. S. C. § 1971 (c), amending R. S. § 2004. See United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17; United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58. Compare Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, and cases following, with Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. Compare Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, with Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 20, 28 (Mr. Justice Johnson, concurring), 51 and 75…
-
England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 375 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1964)…ion, 347 U. S. 483; 349 U. S. 294), and Fifteenth Amendments. See Alabama v. United States, 304 F. 2d 583, aff’d 371 U. S. 37; United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17; United States v. McElveen, 180 F. Supp. 10, aff’d sub nom. United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58. If we are to retain the Pullman doctrine, I think with all deference, we should make it less of a mandatory and more a discretionary procedure and lighten its requirements, rather than make them stricter. We should permit the District Court to ref…
-
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1960)…h Chairman.” 71 Stat. 636, 42 ti. S. C. § 1975d (f). The role of private citizens in depriving Negroes of their right to vote was one of the questions involved in United States v. McElveen, 180 F. Supp. 10 (E. D. La.), aff’d as to defendant Thomas, 362 U. S. 58. Rule 3 (i) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, adopted on July 1, 1958, prohibits witnesses or their counsel from cross-examining other witnesses. That Rule reads: “Interrogation of witnesses at hearings shall be conducted only by members of…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LaVallee v. Corbo, 361 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1960)