Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

430 F.2d 872

Docket No. 28865.

Bayless v. Martine

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Dec. 12, 1969.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-12-12

3 counsel of record

Relies on Bayless v. Martine

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1980

5 federal appellate ·

20196919701980decided

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 →

¶1See also 5 Cir., 430 F.2d 873.

¶2Mark Z. Levbarg, Brooks Holman, Austin, Tex., for appellants.

¶3Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas, James C. McCoy, W. O. Shultz, Pat Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., J. C. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appel-lees.

¶4Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius & Winters, Edward Clark, Austin, Tex., *873for appellee, Board of Regents, State Senior Colleges.

¶5Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

¶6ORDER

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8On December 5, 1969, the appellants moved for an expedited hearing on appeal and for appropriate relief pending disposition of the appeal. On the same day the appellees were notified of the motion and given an opportunity to respond.

¶9Upon review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing upon the preliminary injunction, and considering the injury that the appellants will suffer if they are suspended from Southwest Texas State University, it is ordered that the denial of preliminary injunction by the Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, be stayed and that the appellees herein be enjoined from suspending the appellants from Southwest Texas State University pending the disposition of this appeal and subject to further orders of this Court.

¶10COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

¶11I respectfully dissent from the entry of the foregoing order.

¶12With deference to the views of my Colleagues, I am of the opinion that no substantial First Amendment question is presented by this case. Southwest Texas State University made no effort to interfere with the free expression of opinion; rather, it attempted to control its own campus to the extent of designating the time and the area in which the demonstration was to occur. The students flouted this effort and held the demonstration when they pleased and where they pleased. I believe that the University authorities had the right to specify time and place for this demonstration so as to avoid undue interference with the rights of 9,500 other students.

¶13Furthermore, I dissent for reasons of sound public and judicial policy. I am opposed to the courts taking over, by emergency orders, the administration of college campuses in this Country, especially where, as here, the petitioners have had an evidentiary hearing before the District Court and have there been denied any relief.

/430/f2d/872 · .json · Public domain