Motion to Consolidate for Oral Argument; Correspondence from Rhyne to Schnapper

    IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1978 

  

No. 77-1844 

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al., 

Appellants, 
2 ; 

WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al., 

Appellees. 

  

No. 78-357 

ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, et al., 

Appellants, 

V. 

LEILA G. BROWN, et al., 

Appellees. 

  

On Appeal From The United States Court Of Appeals 
For The Pifth Circuit 

  

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR 
ORAL ARGUMENT, TO ALLOT 
TWO HOURS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, 
AND FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT 
  

Appellees in these cases, through their counsel, move 

this Court pursuant to Rule 43(5) for an order consolidating 

the cases for oral argument, alloting two hours for oral 

argument, and for divided argument, and in support thereof 

state as follows: 

 



  

1. Probable jurisdiction in No. 77-1844 was noted 

on October 2, 1978, and in No. 78-357 on October 30, 1978. 

The order in No. 78-357 stated, "The case is set for oral 

argument in tandem with City of Mobile v. Bolden, No. 77-1844." 

The total amount of time now allocated to the argument of 

these two cases is thus two hours. 

2. Appellees wish to cede to the United States seven 

and one-half minutes of oral argument in No. 77-1844 and seven 

and one-half minutes of oral argument in No. 78-357. Appellees 

suggest that the oral argument would be more clearly and 

efficiently conducted if the argument for the United States 

were presented in a single fifteen minute period during the 

argument of the first case to be heard. Such an allocation 

of time requires consolation of the two cases, and the sole 

purpose of the instant motion is to permit that allocation. 

3. If the instant motion were granted, appellees would 

propose the following schedule for argument: 

No. 77-1844 
  

  

Opening Argument for Appellants Up to 30 minutes 

Argument for Appellees 22% minutes 

Argument for the United States 15 minutes 

Closing argument for Appellants Balance of the 30 

minutes. 

No. 78-357 

Opening argument for Appellants Up to 30 minutes 

Argument for Appellees 22% minutes 

Closing argument for Appellants Balance of the 30 

minutes. 

Total 2 hours 

4. Appellees are authorized to state that the Solicitor 

General joins in this motion, and that counsel for appellants 

in No. 78-357 do not oppose it. The position of counsel for 

 



  

appellants in No. 77-1844 is set forth in the annexed letter 

of Charles S. Rhyne dated February 15, 1979. Granting this 

motion will not alter the total amount of time already 

allocated for these two cases. 

WHEREFORE, appellees pray that the Court consolidate 

these cases for oral argument, allot two hours for oral 

argument, and permit divided argument. 

Respectfully submitted, 

— 

rr 

/ / 
~~ / / 

Pe / / 
- ' i i ; EO / 

/ 
Ss 

  

ET a Rk i Mane 

ZT GREENBERG! 
3 ERIC SCHNAPPER // 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

J. U. BLACKSHER 

LARRY MENEFEE 

1407 Davis Avenue 

Mobile, Alabama 36603 

EDWARD STILL 

Suite 400 

Commerce Center 

2027 First Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that I served copies of the Motion 

to Consolidate for Oral Argument to Allot Two Hours For 

Oral Argument, and for Divided Argument, by depositing them 

in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, 

addressed to: 

Charles S. Rhyne 
Suite 800 
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Fred G. Collins 
City Attorney 
City Hall 
Mobile, Alabama 36602 

C. B. Arendall, Jr. 
Post Office Box 123 

Mobile, Alabama 36601 

William H. Allen 

Covington & Burling 
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Robert C. Campbell, III 
Sintz, Pike, Campbell & Duke 
3763 Professional Parkway 
Mobile, Alabama 36609 

Hon. Wade McCree 

Solicitor General 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

I further certify that all parties required to be served 

have been served. 

Dated: February 21, 1979 or 7 
a 

  

  

Eric Schnapper 
Counsel for Appellees 

 



  

Law OFFICES 

RuaYyNE & REYNE 

CHARLES S. RHYNE SuiTE 800 
BRICE W. RHYNE (1917-1972) 
WILLIAM S. RHYNE 1000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W. 
ALFRED J. TIGHE, JR. 

DONALD A. CARR WasminGgTON, D. C. 20038 
RICHARD J. BACIGALUPO 

MARTIN W. MATZEN 

STEPHEN P. ELMENDORF 

MICHAEL A. HESS 

ARTHUR A. GUTHRIE CABLE ADDRESS 

DOUGLAS E. FRANKLIN (202) 466-5420 CHASRHYNE 

Pebruary 15, 1979 

Eric Schnapper, Esquire 
10 Columbus Circle . 

Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Re: City of Mobile v. Bolden 

Williams v. Brown 
  

  

Dear Mr. Schnapper: 

You have proposed to give the United States, as Amicus 
in these two cases, a total of fifteen minutes of your 
oral argument time, and to have the United States utilize 

all of that time during the portion of the argument devoted 

to Bolden. 

As the United States was not involved in Bolden at the 

trial level (and not involved at all below in Brown), we 

do not foresee that Amicus will desire to spend its oral 

argument time addressing the facts of the cases. If the 

United States' argument will be limited to its views of the 

proper constitutional and statutory principles to be applied 

to voting dilution cases, we have no problem with your pro- 

posed allocation of time. 

As we indicated to you in our telephone conversation today, 

however, we will not consent to any allocation of time which 

leaves the United States addressing the facts of Brown 
during the portion of the argument devoted to Bolden, or 
discussing the facts of Bolden during the portion of the 
‘argument devoted to Brown. 

Sincerely, 

arles S.  § 

CSR:mm