green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.0 score
“the proper avenue for relief if there were unanticipated problems which had developed in the carrying out of the court's order, was an application to intervene and a motion for additional relief in the principal ease.”
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 228, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,070 R. D. Thaggard v. The City of Jackson, Mississippi, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants- Ronald N. Ashley v. City of Jackson, R. D. Thaggard v. City of Jackson
the proper avenue for relief if there were unanticipated problems which had developed in the carrying out of the court's order, was an application to intervene and a motion for additional relief in the principal case.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Thaggard v. City of Jackson
the proper avenue for relief if there were unanticipated problems which had developed in the carrying out of the court's order, was an application to intervene and a motion for additional relief in the principal ease.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JGR, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.
Dist. of City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030, 1030-31 (6th Cir.1972) (applying collateral attack doctrine to bar a complaint because it was filed as “an attempt collaterally to attack” an order entered in “the principal case” handled by the same judge) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oburn v. Shapp
The proper avenue for relief if there were unanticipated problems which had developed in the carrying out of the court’s order, was an application to intervene and a motion for additional relief in the principal case. 464 F.2d at 1030.
cited
Cited "see"
Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County
See Black & White Children v. School Dist., 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972) (per curiam), cited in Jefferson County, 720 F.2d at 1518 n. 17.
discussed
Cited "see"
Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County
See Black & White Children v. School Dist., 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972) (per curiam), cited in Jefferson County, 720 F.2d at 1518 n. 17. 28 The substantial public interest at stake in the case is an unusual circumstance militating in favor of intervention.
cited
Cited "see"
Evelyn Marino v. Juan U. Ortiz
See Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School Dis’t, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972) (per cu-riam).
cited
Cited "see"
26 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1739, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,168 Timothy F. Dennison, Intervenors-Appellees v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Defendants- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 18, on Behalf of Its Members v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Defendants
See Black and White Children v. School District, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Burns v. Board of School Commissioners, 437 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Dennison v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
See Black and White Children v. School District, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Burns v. Board of School Commissioners, 437 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
See Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of the City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (desegregation order). 22 254 In addition, the very separateness between the interests of prospective intervenors and existing parties that establishes a right to intervene also establishes, in a case such as this, that the prospective intervenors (the federal-only plaintiffs) had little to fear, in the way of direct restraints on themselves, from the entry of the Superior Court's preliminary injunction. 23 The Superior Court order only restrained "the…
discussed
Cited "see"
New Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church v. New Jersey State Board of Higher Education
See Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of the City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (desegregation order). 22 In addition, the very separateness between the interests of prospective intervenors and existing parties that establishes a right to intervene also establishes, in a case such as this, that the prospective intervenors (the federal-only plaintiffs) had little to fear, in the way of direct restraints on themselves, from the entry of the Superior Court’s preliminary injunction. 23 The Superior Court order only restrained “the…
discussed
Cited "see"
Glenn N. HEFNER, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
See Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972); Prate v. Freedman, 430 F.Supp. 1373 (W.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 922 , 98 S.Ct. 2274 , 56 L.Ed.2d 765 (1978); McAleer v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 416 F.Supp. 435 (D.D.C.1976); OBurn v. Shapp, 70 F.R.D. 549 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd 546 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 968 , 97 S.Ct. 1650 , 52 L.Ed.2d 359 (1977); Construction Industry Combined Committee v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 67 F.R.D. 664 …
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy v. Board of Education
See, Black and White Children of Pontiac School System v. School District of City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Telephone Workers Union, Local 827 v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.
See Black and White Children of Pontiac School System v. School District of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1973); Oburn v. Shapp, 393 F.Supp. 561, 576 (E.D.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pennell v. Collector of Revenue
See e.g., Black and White Children of Pontiac School System v. School District of City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mann v. City of Albany
See, e.g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School Sys. v. School Dist., 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972); Prate v. Freedman, 430 F.Supp. 1373 (W.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir.1977); O'Burn v. Shapp, 70 F.R.D. 549 , (E.D.Pa.), aff’d, 546 F.2d 417 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 968 , 97 S.Ct. 1650 , 52 L.Ed.2d 359 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 829, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,973 United States of America v. Jefferson County, John W. Martin v. City of Birmingham, Ensley Branch of the Naacp v. George Seibels, Birmingham Firefighters Association 117, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant. James A. Bennett v. Richard Arrington, Jr., Etc.
See, e.g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School Dist., 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972) (stating that a suit seeking injunction against enforcement of a busing order on the ground of unforeseen difficulty should have been brought as a suit to modify the order in the original court.); Prate v. Freedman, 430 F.Supp. 1373 (W.D.N.Y.) aff'd 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir.1977) (refusing to allow an attack on the merits of the judgment); Oburn v. Shapp, 70 F.R.D. 549 (E.D.Pa.) aff'd 546 F.2d 417 (3d Cir.1976) cert. denied 430 U.S. 968 , 97 S.Ct. 1650 , 52 L.Ed.2d 359 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jefferson County
See, e.g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School Dist., 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir.1972) (stating that a suit seeking injunction against enforcement of a busing order on the ground of unforeseen difficulty should have been brought as a suit to modify the order in the original court.); Prate v. Freedman, 430 F.Supp. 1373 (W.D.N.Y.) affd 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir.1977) (refusing to allow an attack on the merits of the judgment); Oburn v. Shapp, 70 F.R.D. 549 (E.D.Pa.) aff’d 546 F.2d 417 (3d Cir.1976) cert. denied 430 U.S. 968 , 97 S.Ct. 1650 , 52 L.Ed.2d 359 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Society Hill Civic Association v. Harris
See, e. g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of the City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 -31 (6th Cir. 1972); McAleer v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 416 F.Supp. 435, 438 (D.D.C. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Society Hill Civic Ass'n v. Harris
See, e. g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of the City of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 -31 (6th Cir. 1972); McAleer v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 416 F.Supp. 435, 438 (D.D.C. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oburn v. Shapp
(2×)
See, e.g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1973); Miller v. Meinhard-Commercial Corp., 462 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1972); Burns v. Board of School Commissioners, 437 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Paul Oburn v. Milton Shapp, William Bolden, Iii, and All Minority Applicants to and Employees of Pennsylvania State Police, Intervening Donald Lutz and Michael Warfel v. Milton Shapp, William Bolden, Iii, and All Minority Applicants to and Employees of Pennsylvania State Police, Intervening
(2×)
See, e.g., Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System v. School District of Pontiac, 464 F.2d 1030 (6th Cir. 1973); Miller v. Meinhard-Commercial Corp., 462 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1972); Burns v. Board of School Commissioners, 437 F.2d 1143 (7th Cir. 1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Black and White Children of the Pontiac School System, a Class of
v.
The School District of the City of Pontiac, a Public Body Corporate of the State of Michigan, Dana P. Whitmer, Superintendent of Schools, School District of the City of Pontiac
v.
The School District of the City of Pontiac, a Public Body Corporate of the State of Michigan, Dana P. Whitmer, Superintendent of Schools, School District of the City of Pontiac
71-1845.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 20, 1972.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (2)
BLACK AND WHITE CHILDREN OF the PONTIAC SCHOOL SYSTEM, a
class of Plaintiffs, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF PONTIAC, a Public Body
Corporate of the State of Michigan, Dana P.
Whitmer, Superintendent of Schools,
School District of the City of
Pontiac, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71-1845.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
July 20, 1972.
Parvin Lee, Jr., Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants; Charles J. Porter, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., of counsel.
Robert E. Manley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-appellees; Beirne, Wirthlin & Manley, Cincinnati, Ohio, Dudley & Patterson, Harold W. Dudley and William R. Lightbody, Pontiac, Mich., of counsel.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE and KENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
Plaintiffs in this case sought an injunction restraining the School District of the City of Pontiac from transporting children, pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Davis v. School District of City of Pontiac, Inc., 309 F.Supp. 734 (E.D.Mich.1970), aff'd, 443 F.2d 573 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 913, 92 S.Ct. 233, 30 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971).
2
The complaint was referred to the same District Judge who had entered the order, the effect of which this suit sought to enjoin; and after oral argument, he dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs' suit was an attempt collaterally to attack the desegregation order entered in the principal case.
3
We affirm.
4
Plainly, plaintiffs have mistaken their remedy. Most of their briefing and argument alleges difficulties in the carrying out of the desegregation order involved in the principal case. The District Court has maintained jurisdiction of the case. The proper avenue for relief if there were unanticipated problems which had developed in the carrying out of the court's order, was an application to intervene and a motion for additional relief in the principal case.
5
Dealing with a very similar argument, this court recently said:
6
"The District Court order in this case specifically retained jurisdiction. Thus, upon our affirmance, the door of the District Court is clearly open (as it has been!) to the parties to present any unanticipated problems (not resulting from failure to comply with its order) which may have arisen or may arise in the future." Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville, Tennessee, 463 F.2d 732 (6th Cir. 1972).
7
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.