Shirley Gaines v. Bd. of Educ. of Dougherty Cnty., Georgia, 446 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Shirley Gaines v. Bd. of Educ. of Dougherty Cnty., Georgia, 446 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Conklin & Garrett, Ltd. v. M/v Finnrose, Etc. (ca5, 1987-09-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Conklin & Garrett, Ltd. v. M/v Finnrose, Etc.
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Unterweser Reederei and Zapata Off-shore Co. v. M/S BREMEN, 446 F.2d 907, 908-9 (5th Cir.1971) (Wisdom, J., dissenting (en banc)). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shirley Gaines v. Dougherty County Board of Education
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In both instances desegregation plans approved by the district court were reviewed by this court in light of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 , 91 S.Ct. 1267 , 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), and rejected. 446 F.2d at 907; 465 F.2d at 364 .
cited Cited "see" SEC v. Bilzerian
D.D.C. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Unterweser Reederei Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 1970), aff’d on rehearing en banc, 446 F.2d 907 (1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" Ensambles Hyson, S.A de C.V. v. Sanchez
S.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 881. 25 / / / 26 27 4 These factors were first articulated in In re Unterweser Reederei, Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888, 896 (5th Cir. 28 1970), aff’d on reh’g, 446 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1971) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" Sing Fuels Pte Ltd. v. M/V LILA SHANGHAI (IMO 9541318)
E.D. Va. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
The Courts of Appeals that have discussed this assessment agree that the district court should consider the following four factors: “whether the parallel litigation would ‘(1) frustrate a policy in the enjoining forum; (2) be vexatious; (3) threaten the issuing court's in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction; [or] (4) prejudice other equitable considerations ....’” Software AG, Inc. v. Consist Software Sols., Inc., 323 Fed.Appx. 11 , 12 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 500 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2007) (alterations, ellipses, an…
cited Cited "see" Bae Systems Technology Solution & Services, Inc. v. Republic of Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration
D. Maryland · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Urribro, 1997 WL 33378853 , at *2-3 (citing In re Unterweser Reederei Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir.1970), aff'd on rehearing en banc, 446 F.2d 907 (1971), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.
cited Cited "see" MacPhail v. Oceaneering International, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Unterweser Reederei Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888, 896 (5th Cir.1970), aff'd on rehearing en banc, 446 F.2d 907 (1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited "see" The Merchants National Bank of Mobile v. The Dredge General G. L. Gillespie, Etc.
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally M/S BREMEN v. Zapata Off Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 , vacating In re Unterweiser Reederei, GmBH, 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970), adopted 446 F.2d 907 (1971) (en banc). .
cited Cited "see" Poseidon Schiffahrt G.M.B.H. v. the M/S Netuno
S.D. Ga. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See the en banc decision of that Court in 446 F.2d 907 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Seattle Totems Hockey Club, Inc., Eldred W. Barnes and Vincent H. D. Abbey v. The National Hockey League, Northwest Sports Enterprises, Ltd.
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Chase Manhattan Bank v. State of Iran, 484 F.Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y.1980). 5 In re Unterweser Reederei Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970), aff’d on rehearing en banc, 446 F.2d 907 (1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shirley GAINES Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
71-2579.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 25, 1971.
446 F.2d 907
C. B. King, Albany, Ga., Jack Green-berg, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants., Jesse W. Walters, Albany, G;a., for defendants-appellees.
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The within matter is remanded to the district court with direction that the district court at once issue a rule nisi to defendants as to why the student assignment plan now on file prepared by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare should not be made the student assignment plan for the school system for the 1971-72 school term. (The HEW plan referred to is described in the brief of plaintiffs filed with this court in Gaines v. Dougherty County Board of Education et al., 442 F.2d 1344, on August 31, 1970).

The district court shall conduct an immediate hearing on the rule nisi and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter final judgment with respect to the issue or issues presented after the parties shall have had an opportunity to present evidence.

In the event either party appeals from said judgment, the record is to be transmitted to the court within 10 days from the date of judgment.

Remanded with directions.