green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
20.9 score
“newspaper has no duty, whether by way of tort or contract, to investigate the accuracy of advertisements placed with it which are directed to the general public, unless the newspaper undertakes to guarantee the soundness of the products advertised.”
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Alliance Chapter, Nat. Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. City of Alliance School Bd.
But see United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.1987). 9 In all events, we are fully satisfied that it was not an abuse of his discretion for the trial judge to deny the request to extend the Decree under the circumstances before him, nor were the facts presented to him on behalf of the plaintiffs sufficient to impose a duty on his part to entertain an evidentiary hearing before exercising that discretion.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thomas v. St. Martin Parish School Board
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
attaining unitary status, however, means that a school board is free to act without federal supervision so long as the board does not purposefully discriminate; only intentional discrimination violates the constitution.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Midland Indep Sch
unitary status can be achieved in an incremental fashion.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, Inc.
newspaper has no duty, whether by way of tort or contract, to investigate the accuracy of advertisements placed with it which are directed to the general public, unless the newspaper undertakes to guarantee the soundness of the products advertised.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Safeguard Insurance
See Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 359 n. 45, 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (“Presumptions shifting the burden of proof are often created to reflect judicial evaluations of probabilities and to conform with a party’s superior access to the proof.”); United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1176 (5th Cir.1987) (“[T]he party with superior knowledge of the facts is better able to prove its intent, and superior access to *707 proof is a common justification for allocating the burden of proof.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tasby v. Moses
In Flax v. Potts, 915 F.2d 155 (1990) the Circuit reiterated the principle that court-ordered desegregation plans were designed to remedy constitutional violations; District Courts should, therefore, weigh school districts’ compliance with court orders in the light of the original constitutional violation. “[T]o continue supervision once the [constitutional] wrong is righted, ... ‘effectively changes the constitutional measure of the wrong itself: it transposes the dictates of the remedy for the dictates of the constitution.’” Id. at 159 , quoting U.S. v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1176…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. PULASKI CTY. SPEC. SCH.
LRSD filed a Response to the October 3, 2001 Order (docket no. 3517) objecting "to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court." Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected "Option 2." Therefore, any evidence of LRSD's "compliance activities" that took place after March 15, 2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. [66] Part of Joshua's argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of African-American students included the contention th…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Id. (citing United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1175 (5th Cir.1987); Riddick v. School Bd., 784 F.2d 521 , 533-34 (4th Cir.1986); Vaughns v. Board of Educ., 758 F.2d 983 , 988 (4th Cir.1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DeKalb County School District v. Schrenko
United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc.
See Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 781 F.2d 394, 396-98 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1022 , 106 S.Ct. 3339 , 92 L.Ed.2d 743 (1986) (stating that our task under Erie is to apply existing state law, not to adopt innovative theories for the state); Pittman v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 834 F.2d 1171, 1171 (5th Cir.1987) (“[W]e are not free to fashion new theories of recovery under Louisiana law.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 44,491 Clara Alexander v. Robin Britt, and David T. Flaherty
Moreover, in two of them, United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir.1987), and South v. Rowe, 759 F.2d 610, 613 (7th Cir.1985), the courts held only that a sunset provision could effectively restrict federal jurisdiction, not that such a provision required a court to retain jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alexander v. Britt
Moreover, in two of them, United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 1987), and South v. Rowe, 759 F.2d 610, 613 (7th Cir. 1985), the courts held only that a sunset provision could effectively restrict fed- eral jurisdiction, not that such a provision required a court to retain juris- diction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Board Of Education Of Topeka
Dowell, 498 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 638 ; United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (5th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Dowell , 498 U.S. at —, 111 S.Ct. at 638 ; United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (5th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Talladega County Board of Education
Schs. v. Dowell, — U.S. —, —, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637 , 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991); United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Talladega County Board of Education
Schs. v. Dowell, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637 , 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991); United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir.1987). 11 Injunctive decrees in school desegregation cases were never intended to operate in perpetuity.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Waste & Pollution Control Company v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
(2×)
In addition, “[w]hen making an AWe-guess in the absence of explicit guidance from the state courts, we must attempt to predict state law, not to create or modify it.” United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Weben Indus., Inc., 794 F.2d 1005, 1008 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 781 F.2d 394, 396-98 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc)). “[W]e are not free to fashion new theories of recovery under Louisiana law.” Pittman v. Dow Jones & Co., 834 F.2d 1171, 1171 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dowell v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUB. S.
Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 , 97 S.Ct. 555, 563 , 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239, 240 , 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047, 2048 , 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976); United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1175 (5th Cir.1987); Riddick v. School Bd., 784 F.2d 521 , 538-539 (4th Cir.1986). 3 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Samantha Price, Etc., Brandon McMurthy Etc. v. Austin Independent School District
(8×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1177-78 (5th Cir.1987), aff'g 671 F.Supp. 484 (W.D.Tex.1987). 12 After the case returned to the district court, nearly two years of discovery and pre-trial proceedings ensued.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arlene Flax, Etc. v. W.S. Potts, Fort Worth Independent School District, a Corporation
In Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1177 (1987), we agreed with the First Circuit’s conclusion in Morgan, 831 F.2d 313 (1987), that a school system can achieve unitary status incrementally and that, when it does so, the court will abdicate its supervisory role as to the aspect of the desegregation plan proclaimed unitary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Board Of Education Of Topeka
Landry Parish School Bd., 848 F.2d 625, 632 (5th Cir.1988) (footnotes omitted); accord Morgan, 831 F.2d at 325 ("Both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly stated that a judicially imposed desegregation remedy goes too far if it attempts to engineer some sort of idealized racial balance in the schools."); Flax v. Potts, 864 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.1989) ("There is no constitutional mandate that each school in the school district reflect the racial composition of the school district as a whole."); Pitts v. Freeman, 755 F.2d 1423, 1427 (11th Cir.1985) ("We do not hold, however, that …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Board of Education
When the constitutional violation is purposeful separation of the races caused by school officials in student and faculty/staff assignment, “[t]he mix that would have occurred but for the racism is a judicially created hypothetical.” United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1176 (5th Cir.1987).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dowell v. Board of Education of the Oklahoma City Public Schools
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Overton, 834 F.2d at 1175 (footnote omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dowell v. Oklahoma City Public Schools
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
As we have said, a school district is released from the consequences of its past misdeeds when it eliminates the vestiges of a segregated system and achieves a true unitary system. 141 Overton, 834 F.2d at 1175 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. State of La.
VI, Nonadmission and Nondetermination, at 20. [16] See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174, 1176 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Lawrence County School District, 799 F.2d 1031, 1037 (5th Cir.1986). [17] Lawrence County, 799 F.2d at 1037 & n. 5. [18] See Overton, 834 F.2d at 1174 . [19] United States v. Marion County School District, 625 F.2d 607, 611-13 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 , 101 S.Ct. 1980 , 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981); Civil Rights Act of 1964, tit.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook v. Ramsey 1 Unit
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174-77 (Sth Cir. 1987) (a consent decree requiring the Austin ISD to be unitary was no longer enforceable once the district court dismissed the case); see also Thorpe v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:20-cv-00007, 2021 WL 2435868 , at *3 (W.D.
cited
Cited "see"
Pro-Life Mississippi v. Horton
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Pro-Life Mississippi v. Horton
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Ex Rel. D.M.T. v. School Board St. Martin Parish
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (5th Cir.1987) (consent decree provided for supervision of school district for three years, at which point the district would be declared unitary and the case dismissed; at the end of three years, the district court entered an order dismissing the case); Riddick ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1175 (5th Cir.1987), and Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, 758 F.2d 983, 988 (4th Cir.1985). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Coalition to Save Our Children v. Buchanan
Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 319-26 (1st Cir.1987) (Court of Appeals vacated district court’s student reassignment order and remanded for a determination of whether the school district was unitary with regard to student assignments); accord United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 , 1177 (5th Cir.1987); but see Pitts v. Freeman, 887 F.2d 1438 , 1446 (11th Cir.1989), petition for cert. filed, 58 U.S.L.W. 3536 (U.S. February 12, 1990) (No. 89-1290) (rejecting Morgan’s ruling that unitary status may be achieved incrementally).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Louisiana
(2×)
See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174, 1176 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Lawrence County School District, 799 F.2d 1031, 1037 (5th Cir.1986). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
M. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board
(2×)
Flax , 915 F.2d at 163 ; see also United States v. Overton , 834 F.2d 1171 , 1177 & n.20 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that the Austin school district had been subject to a three-year Youngblood period in rejecting an attempt to reopen that desegregation case). 2 And the circuit that we followed when adopting the incremental approach to unitary status, Morgan v. Nucci , 831 F.2d 313 (1st Cir. 1987), cited in Flax , 915 F.2d at 158 , later approved use of a Youngblood probationary period before the district court ended oversight of teacher assignments in Boston schools, Morgan v. Burke , 926 F.2d 86 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Big Time Worldwide Concert & Sport Club at Town Center, LLC v. Marriott International, Inc.
Furthermore, “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573 (emphasis added) (citing Leary, 228 F.3d at 739 ); see also United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir.1987) (“a preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy for which the movant has a heavy burden.” (emphasis added)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell
(2×)
See, e. g., United States v. Overton, 834 F. 2d 1171, 1175 (CA5 1987); Riddick v. School Bd. of Norfolk, supra, at 533-534; Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's Cty., 758 F. 2d 983, 988 (CA4 1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marilyn Marie Monteilh v. St. Landry Parish School Board
See id. at 1037-38 ; Ross v. Houston Independent School District, 699 F.2d 218, 227 (5th Cir.1983); Youngblood v. Board of Public Instruction, 448 F.2d 770 , 771 (5th Cir.1971) (per curiam); see also United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 , 1175 n. 12 (5th Cir.1987) (describing the Youngblood procedures). 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John PITTMAN and Iddo Pittman, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee
v.
DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., D/B/A the Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee
87-3548.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 9, 1987.
Iddo Pittman, Jr., Tom H. Matheny, Pittman & Matheny, Hammond, La., for plaintiffs-appellants., Jack M. Weiss, Mary Louise Strong, Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Rubin, Randall, Jolly.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Hawaii Supreme Court (1)
PER CURIAM:
The district court’s order and reasons in this case, 662 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.La.1987), were sensitive to the court’s role as an Erie court. Finding no support in the Louisiana law for the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery in tort or in contract, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs’ appellate brief cites no new authority, but simply urges us as a matter of public policy to place the responsibility for the plaintiffs’ loss on The Wall Street Journal. Even if we agreed with the plaintiffs’ policy arguments, which we do not, we are not free to fashion new theories of recovery under Louisiana law.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of that court’s opinion.