BUSH ET AL.
v.
ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD ET AL.
Per Curiam.
These are motions for stay of an injunction by a three-judge District Court which nullified a series of enactments of the State of Louisiana. The scope of these enactments and the basis on which they were found in conflict with the Constitution of the United States are not matters of doubt. The nub of the decision of the three-judge court is this:
“The conclusion is clear that interposition is not a constitutional doctrine. If taken seriously, it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” United States v. Louisiana, 188 F. Supp. 916, 926.
The main basis for challenging this ruling is that the State of Louisiana “has interposed itself in the field, of public education over which it has exclusive control.” This objection is without substance, as we held, upon full consideration, in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. The others are likewise without merit.
Accordingly, the motions for stay are denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2005)…conviction has become final,” which describes the circumstances under which Arbelaez met with Wiley on death row. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999) (citing Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507, 513, 81 S.Ct. 260, 5 L.Ed.2d 249 (1960)) (“[WJhere there can be no further incrimination, there is no basis for the assertion of the privilege.”). Similarly, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to critical stages “of the prosecution,” United States v. Wade,…
-
McDONALD v. State, 321 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892)]; Brown v. Walker, 1896, 161 U.S. 591, 16 S.Ct. 644, 40 L.Ed. 819; Heike v. United States, 1913, 217 U.S. 423, 30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821, as to both federal and state prosecutions. In Reina v. United States, 1960, 364 U.S. 507, 81 S.Ct. 260, 5 L.Ed.2d 249. Since the granting of immunity is not a judicial function, but it is an executive or legislative power, United States v. Ford, 1878, 99 U.S. 594, 25 L.Ed. 399; Ullman v. United States, 1955, 350 U.S. 422, 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511,…
-
Dearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…rivilege no longer exists as to alleged crimes for which the witness could not be subsequently prosecuted, as when he had, as in this case, previously pled guilty and been sentenced for the offense in question. Rein a v. United States, 364 U.S. 507, 81 S.Ct. 260, 5 L.Ed.2d 249 (1960); In re Liddy, 506 F. 2d 1293, 1300 (D.C.Cir.1974); United States v. Skolek, 474 F. 2d 582 (10th Cir. 1973). Moreover, the mere fact that one’s truthful answers to a particular question would result in a revocation of his proba…
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1958)