green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
21.3 score
“in this circuit, a decree that provides a remedy agreed to by some, but not all, of the parties cannot affect the rights of a dissenting party.”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reynolds v. Butts
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
in this circuit, a decree that provides a remedy agreed to by some, but not all, of the parties cannot affect the rights of a dissenting party.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Alabama
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit noted the arguments for a remedy replacing the at-large election system with single-member districts, see, e.g., White, 74 F.3d at 1065, but it rejected the settlement agreement’s remedy on grounds unrelated to those arguments. , As Defendants point out (Doc. # 17, at 27), the court expressed its disagreement with the en banc decision in Nipper , going so far as to opine that "in this circuit, Section Two of the Voting Rights Act frankly cannot be said to apply, in any meaningful way, to at-large judicial elections.” Davis, 139 F.3d at 1424 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reed v. United Teachers Los Angeles
In Local No. 93, supra, 478 U.S. at page 529 , the court noted that a settlement cannot resolve the valid claims of nonconsenting intervenors and “if properly raised, these claims remain and may be litigated by the intervener. [Citations.]” (See White v. State of Alabama (11th Cir. 1996) 74 F.3d 1058, 1075, fn. 53 [explaining that in Local No. 93, the court rejected the argument that the consent decree was invalidly entered without the union’s consent, “because the union had presented no claim for relief to the district court; that is, it had no cause of action in its own right and it …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Dillard v. Baldwin County Commissioners
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
White, 74 F.3d at 1074-75. 7 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reynolds v. Alabama Department of Transportation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The clear law of this circuit is that “a consent decree requires the consent of all parties whose legal rights would be adversely affected by the decree.” United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 975 (11th Cir.1998); see also White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1073 (11th Cir.1996) (“In this circuit, a decree that provides a remedy agreed to by some, but not all, of the parties cannot affect the rights of a dissenting party.”); id. at 1076 (Black, J., specially concurring) (“Once a party intervenes, he becomes a full participant and is entitled to have his claims litigated.”).�…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reynolds v. Roberts
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The clear law of this circuit is that "a consent decree requires the consent of all parties whose legal rights would be adversely affected by the decree.” United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 975 (11th Cir.1998); see also White v. *1357 Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1073 (11th Cir.1996) ("In this circuit, a decree that provides a remedy agreed to by some, but not all, of the parties cannot affect the rights of a dissenting party.”); id. at 1076 (Black, J., specially concurring) ("Once a party intervenes, he becomes a full participant and is entitled to have his claims litigated.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.
(8×)
White, 74 F.3d at 1061.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.
(6×)
White, 74 F.3d at 1061.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Jones
As stated above, the Eleventh Circuit itself recognized in White not only that “federal courts may not mandate as a section 2 remedy that a state or political subdivision alter the size of its elected bodies” but that even a consent decree “that provides a remedy agreed to by some, but not all, of the parties cannot affect the rights of a dissenting party.” 74 F.3d at 1073.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maxine B. Cousin v. Don Sundquist State Election Commission Brook Thompson Hamilton County Election Commission Carolyn Jackson
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Milwaukee Branch, 116 F.3d at 1200-01 (discussing single-member districting); White, 74 F.3d at 1070-75 (reversing the imposition of a remedy increasing the size of the state appellate courts and creating a nominating commission to appoint the additional judges); Nipper, 39 F.3d at 1542-47 (addressing the possible remedies of single-member districting, cumulative voting, and the creation of a new Judicial Circuit); LULAC, 999 F.2d at 872-76 (rejecting single-member districting and limited and cumulative voting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. City of Hialeah
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
White, 74 F.3d at 1074.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. City of Hialeah
(7×)
also: Cited "see"
White, 74 F.3d at 1074.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Mallory v. State of Ohio
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d at 1069 (footnote and citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Black Warrior River-Keeper Inc v. Drummond Company
See White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1074–75 (11th Cir. 1996); Fla. Wildlife Fed., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 4:08cv324-RH/WCS, 2009 WL 5217062 , at *3 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1073-74 (11th Cir.1996) (finding that right of class of “non-black voters” to be free from racial discrimination, as protected by Section 2, was violated by a settlement agreement which racially apportioned state judicial offices).
discussed
Cited "see"
Opinion Number
See, Oren , 96-3130, Cross Motions for Summary Judgment Opinion (Feb. 10, 1999). 4 See , 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (b) ("Provided, that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population."), and White v. Alabama , 74 F.3d 1058 , 1071-3 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used as a vehicle for achieving proportional representation in Alabama's appellate courts.)
cited
Cited "see"
Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Florida
See White v. State of Ala., 74 F.3d 1058 , 1074 (11th Cir.1996) (district courts lack power in § 2 cases to enter consent decrees that provide unauthorized remedies).
cited
Cited "see"
Midtown Hospital v. Miller
See White v. State of Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
See White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1073-74 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder
(2×)
Shelby Cnty., 811 F.Supp.2d at 482 ; see also, e.g., White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1071 n. 42 (11th Cir.1996) (“Because we dispose of the district court’s judgment on the ground that it violates the Voting Rights Act, we need not, and indeed, should not, discuss wheth er the judgment violates the Equal Protection Clause.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dillard v. Colbert County Commission
See Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 , 114 S.Ct. 2581 , 129 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994) (federal court cannot modify size of elected governing body in order to remedy § 2 violation); Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1532 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (“[Ujnder Holder , federal courts may not mandate as a § 2 remedy that a state or political subdivision alter the size of its elected bodies.”); see also White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1072 (11th Cir.1996) (under Holder and Nipper , federal courts lack such authority even as part of a settlement).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dillard v. Chilton County Commission
Subsequently, in Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit held that, “under Holder , federal courts may not mandate as a § 2 remedy that a state or political subdivision alter the size of its elected bodies.” Id. at 1532; see also White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1072 (11th Cir.1996) (holding that, under Holder and Nipper , the federal courts lacked the authority under § 2 to require even as part of an alleged settlement that the State of Alabama increase the size of its appellate courts).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alabama v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
A court’s approval of a consent decree between some of the parties[,] therefore[,] cannot dispose of the valid claims of nonconsenting inter-venors; if properly raised, these claims remain and may be litigated by the inter-venor.” (quoting Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 , 106 S.Ct. 3063 , 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986))); see also White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1073-75 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Dillard v. Baldwin County Commissioners
We stated clearly that under the Supreme Court’s holding in Holder, “federal courts may not mandate as a section 2 remedy that a state or political subdivision alter the size of its elected bodies.” Id. at 1532 ; see also White, 74 F.3d at 1072 (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Dillard v. Baldwin County Commissioners
(2×)
We stated clearly that under the Supreme Court's holding in Holder, "federal courts may not mandate as a section 2 remedy that a state or political subdivision alter the size of its elected bodies." Id. at 1532 ; see also White, 74 F.3d at 1072 (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dillard v. City of Greensboro
This test will be satisfied if evidence of past discrimination is shown and there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish that the plan is narrowly tailored to remedy that discrimination.” Greensboro, 74 F.3d at 234 (citing Miller, — U.S. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2491 ). • “[T]he state interest in avoiding liability under ... § 2 is compelling.” Bush , — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1970 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (citing White v. Alabama, 867 F.Supp. 1519, 1549 (M.D.Ala.1994) (Thompson, J.) (the results test “has not been held unconstitutional and complying with it remains a strong…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Michael Gordon and Rena Gordon v. Jay H. Gouline
See, e.g., White v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058 , 1062-63 (11th Cir.1996) (The parties settled a class action pursuant to a Rule 68 offer of judgment and then asked the court to give final approval to the judgment following a Rule 23(e) fairness hearing.); Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1517-18 (9th Cir.1994) (The court affirmed the district court, which had conducted a hearing before entering judgment on a Rule 68 settlement.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1698 , 131 L.Ed.2d 561 (1995); Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1329 (5th Cir.1977) (The court affirmed the district court, which had n…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
State of Alabama
v.
State of Alabama
94-7024.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 24, 1996.
74 F.3d 1058
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1)
BLACK, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in the conclusion, stated in section IV.A of the majority opinion, that there was no valid consent decree upon which the district court could have entered its judgment. I therefore concur in the result as well. Since the district court's judgment must be vacated because it was premised on an invalid consent decree, our analysis should end at this point.
The three-judge court granted Bradford and Montiel's motions to intervene in this suit as party plaintiffs, and the parties have not appealed these rulings. Once a party intervenes, he becomes a full participant and is entitled to have his claims litigated. Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., 997 F.2d 803, 805 (10th Cir. 1993); 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1920 (1986). The original parties to a suit may not, through a purported consent decree settling the claims between them, stipulate away the rights of an intervening party without his approval. Local Number 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland , 478 U.S. 501, 529, 106 S. Ct. 3063, 3079 (1986) (citing Wheeler v. American Home Products Corp., 563 F.2d 1233, 1237-38 (5th Cir. 1977)); 3B James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 24.16[6] (2d ed. 1995). It follows that a consent decree that compromises a non-consenting party's claims is invalid to the extent that it does so. See Local Number 93, 478 U.S. at 529, 106 S. Ct. at 3079; United States v. City of Miami, Fla., 664 F.2d 435, 442 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (Rubin, J.); League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 846 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 878 (1994).
In the case before us, the settlement reached by the White class and the State of Alabama resolved the claims of Bradford and Montiel contrary to their interests and without their consent. Bradford and Montiel, however, were entitled as party plaintiffs to fully litigate their claims. They did not receive this opportunity. The district court believed, erroneously, it had before it a valid consent decree; and the court entered its final judgment based on the purported consent decree. Since the consent decree was invalid1, the court could not enter a final consent judgment and we need not consider the substance of the invalid judgment.
1 The decree would also be invalid if, as maintained by the appellants, the state's attorney general did not have authority to negotiate the decree and bind the Alabama legislature, governor and populace to a plan that would alter state constitutional and statutory provisions.
[*2]