Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

260 F. Supp. 918

Smith v. Ladner

U.S. District Court

Decided October 11, 1966

U.S. District Court · decided 1966-10-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This designation and composition of the three-judge court is not a pre-judgment, express or implied, as to whether this is properly a case for a three-judge rather than a one-judge court. This is a matter best detez'mizzed by the tliree-judge court as this enables a simultaneous appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court without the delay, awkwardness, and administrative insufficiency of a proceeding by way of mandamus from either the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or both, directed against the Chief Judge of the Circuit, the presiding District Judge, or both. The parties will be afforded the opportunity to brief and argue, all such questions before the tliree-judge panel either preliminarily or on the trial of the merits, or otherwise, as that Court thinks appropriate.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Jackson v. Department of Public Welfare, United States v. D'Andrea

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 45

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-10-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1980

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80196619701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JOHN R. BROWN, Acting Chief Judge.

¶1 Whereas Honorable Elbert P. Tuttle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is outside of the Circuit and temporarily unable to perform his duties as Chief Judge; and whereas the undersigned is a Circuit Judge in active service, present in the Circuit, under 70 years of age, next in precedence, and able and qualified to act as Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 45(d); and whereas in my judgment, the public interest so requires ; and

¶2 The Honorable Dan M. Russell, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to whom an application for injunction and other relief has been presented in the above-styled and numbered cause, having notified me that the action is one required by Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three Judges, I, John R. Brown, Acting Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, hereby designate the Honorable James P. Coleman, United States Circuit Judge, and the Honorable William Harold Cox, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, to serve with Judge Russell as members of, and with him to constitute the said Court to hear and determine the action.

¶3 This designation and composition of the three-judge court is not a prejudgment, express or implied, as to whether this is properly a case for a three-judge rather than a one-judge court. This is a matter best, determined by the three-judge court as this enables a simultaneous appeal to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court without the delay, awkwardness, and administrative insufficiency of a proceeding by way of mandamus from either the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or both, directed against the Chief Judge of the Circuit, the presiding District Judge, or both. The parties will be afforded the opportunity to brief and argue all such questions before the three-judge panel either preliminarily or on the trial of the merits, or otherwise, as that Court thinks appropriate.

/260/fsupp/918 · .json · Public domain