Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Space Exploration v. NLRB 5th Cir.
- 2025Promise Arizona v. Petersen 9th Cir.
- 2022NLRB v. Constellium Rolled Products 4th Cir.
- 2021Lexington Insurance Company v. The Ambassador Group LLC W.D. Ky.
- 2020League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Board of Elections W.D. Va.
- 2020League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State Mich.
- 2015Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen Tex. App.
- 2013Barry v. City of New York E.D.N.Y.
- 2010United States v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. 1st Cir.
- 2010Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury E.D. Pa.
Cites 2 statutes
- Direct appeals from decisions of three-judge courts
- Repealed.
Cites 2 cases
- Muskrat v. United States
- Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
MOORE et al. v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
Attorneys
- Whiteford S. Blakeney argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was William H. Booe.
- William J. Waggoner argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Benjamin S. Horack.
- Solicitor General Grisioold and Assistant Attorney General Leonard filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, ante, p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
Dismissed.