Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Ford Motor Company, (Two Cases). The United States of America v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation (D.C. Cir. 1978)
- Lorine Watkins v. The Chicago Housing Authority (7th Cir. 1969)
- Ruth Booker, an Infant, by Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend v. State of Tennessee Board of Education (6th Cir. 1957)
- Familias Unidas v. Briscoe (5th Cir. 1976)
- Familias Unidas v. Briscoe (5th Cir. 1976)
- NAT. CONGRESS OF HISPANIC AM. CIT.(EL CONGRESO) v. Dunlop (District Court, District of Columbia 1975)
- In the Matter of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Debtor (2d Cir. 1973)
- Becket v. Marks (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
- Dunkel v. Elkins (District Court, D. Maryland 1971)
- Haywood Cash and Rennell Cash v. Swifton Land Corporation (6th Cir. 1970)
- Duncan Miller v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior (10th Cir. 1966)
- Morrison Cafeteria Company of Nashville, Inc. v. Mitchell Lee Johnson (6th Cir. 1965)
- MAGTAB PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. Howard (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1959)
- Magtab Publishing Corp. v. Howard (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1959)
- Hart v. Board of Education of Charles County (District Court, D. Maryland 1958)
- Sharp v. Lucky (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1958)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes “similarly situated,” sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the Univer *518 sity of Tennessee. A three-judge cohrt, convened at appellants’ request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2281 and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. 100 F. Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. 97 F. Supp. 463.
Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U. S. 846, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal.
At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants’ requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person “similarly situated” will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants’ motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is directed to dismiss the action upon the ground that the cause is moot.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.