Greenberg Statement on Title VI Enforcement in Arkansas and Tennessee
Press Release
February 14, 1969

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. York v. City of Danville Petition for Rehearing, 1963. 305c90bb-c99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7f192d58-5c10-40b2-aeee-9c14e65d9883/york-v-city-of-danville-petition-for-rehearing. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia AT RICHMOND Record No. 6253 L. WILSON YORK, et al, Appellants, v. CITY OF DANVILLE, Appellee. PETITION FOR REHEARING JAMES A. H. FERGUSON City Attorney 101 Municipal Building Danville, Virginia 24541 WILLIAM H. FULLER, III Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Masonic Building Danville, Virginia 24541 JOHN W. CARTER 124 South Market Street Danville, Virginia 24541 Counsel for Appellee TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Petition for Rehearing............... ........... ....... ...... ...... 5 I. Costs Should Be Assessed In Only One Case................. .5 II. Section 14.1-196 of Virginia Code Does Not Contemplate Multiple Attorney’s Fees In Series of Similar Cases................. 7 Conclusion........................................... ...... .....................7 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Ficklen v. City of Danville, 146 Va. 426, 131 S. E. 689 (1926)..... ...6 MeCready v. Lyon, 167 Va. 103, 187 S. E. 442 (1936)................... 6 Roller v. State Milk Commission, 204 Va. 536, 132 S. E. 2d 427 (1963).................. .......... .......... 6 Scott v. Doughty, 130 Va. 523, 107 S. E. 729 (1921)........... ...........................................................6 Williams v. Bond, 120 Va. 678, 91 S. E. 627 (1917)......................................... 6 Statutes Code of Virginia, § 14.1-181............ ...... ........ ...... 6, 7 Code of Virginia, § 14.1-196........... ....7 Code of Virginia, § 14.1-197....... 7 Code of Virginia, § 14.1-198..................... 7 IN THE Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia AT RICHMOND Record No. 6253 L. WILSON YORK ANNIE PEARL AVERY CLYDE LANGSTON BANKS PERCY BRADFORD BOONE JOHNNY ALLEN BOWLES, JR. LUTHER ALFRED BROWN ROSA MARIE CAIN LELIA VIRGINIA CLARK MARGARET LEE COLEMAN MARION JOHNSON COLEMAN SILAS COLEMAN MARY HELEN CREWS OTHIA DAVIS MARGARET PHEBAE DILLARD JOHN ROOSEVELT DODSON LENA EMMERSON FERRELL MAMIE LEE FLEMINGS ARDELIA FREEMAN DOROTHY GALES THOMAS LEE GLASS, JR. RICHARD DRUMMOND GOODWIN 3 MABLE GRAVES ANNIE MAE LEWIS HAIRSTON GLADYS MARIE HARPER GERTIE WILLIAMS HARRIS JOE WILLIE HARVEST JOSEPH KENEITH HATCHETT RONALD LEON HOFFMAN RUBY SPRAGGINS WYLLIE HOLLOWAY GROVER CLEVELAND HOLT IRADELL GRAVES JEFFRIES LESLIE WISNER LANCASTER WILLIE TERRY LANIER EDNA ROSE IRBY LYNN ADELL MORRISON ROBERT LEE MORTON MELBA GRAVES MURRILL MAXINE LUCK MUSE ROBERT EARL OVERBY DELORES JEANNEATTA PAGE BRIAN LEE PETERSON ARTHUR PINCHBACK, JR. BARBARA ANN POUNDS LUVINIA PRITCHETT ROBERT LEWIS QUARTERMAN ODARIS ROBINSON LORRAINE COATLAND BOWE SCHROETER AZZARIE BENSON SLADE DOROTHY LEE SMITH CLAUDE STEVENSON 4 ELIZABETH PHILLIPS STILL MAGGIE JAULILLIAN SUMMERS WILLIE THOMAS SUTHERLIN MARIE THOMAS ROBERT LEE TRENT MAGGIE MAXINE WILLIAMS JACQUELINE MILLER WILSON MELVIN WILSON GARLAND WITHERSPOON HESTER WILLIAM WOMACK JOHN ROBERT ZELLNER, Appellants, CITY OF DANVILLE, Appellee. PETITION FOR REHEARING Your petitioner, City of Danville, respectfully requests a rehearing in the above-entitled causes and that this Court’s orders therein, dated January 18, 1967, be modified as to costs assessed against the City in all cases except York for the reasons and upon the grounds following, to-wit: I Costs Should Be Assessed In Only One Case The Court heard only one of the above cases out of sixty-one, namely: York v. City of Danville 5 (Record No. 6253). As a result of the holdings in that case, the other sixty cases were summarily reversed and annulled upon petitions previously filed by the sixty parties aggrieved. It is conceded that the costs assessed in York ($553.74) were properly assessed and no complaint is here made as to those costs. However, it is here argued that the assessment of $59.50 costs in each of the remaining sixty cases for a total of $3,570.00 is erroneous. Section 14.1-181 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides for the recovery of costs in this Court by the party substantially prevailing. It is here contended that even though the cases hold that such are mandatory, these sixty-one cases should be treated as one cause. There is a series of cases that hold that costs are mandatory. Williams v. Bond, 120 Va. 678, 91 S. E. 627 (1917); Scott v. Doughty, 130 Va. 523, 107 S. E. 729 (1921); Mc- Cready v. Lyon, 167 Va. 103, 187 S. E. 442 (1936) ; Roller v. State Milk Commission, 204 Va. 536, 132 S. E. 2d 427 (1963). But see Fieklen v. City of Dan ville, 146 Va. 426, 131 S. E. 689 (1926), where it was held that when it is shown that the controversy in a case ceases to exist leaving only moot questions there can be no recovery of costs. It is contended that treating all these cases as one, the holding in York made the remaining sixty cases moot and no costs needed to be assessed therein, as they were not actually heard, but were to stand or fall on the decision in York. 6 II Section 14.1-196 of Virginia Code Does Not Contemplate Multiple Attorney’s Fees In Series of Similar Cases The last sentence of Section 14.1-196 of the Vir ginia Code, 1950, as amended, which section pro vides for the assessment of $50.00 attorney’s fee in the Supreme Court of Appeals, is of interest and is here quoted: “But in no case shall more than one fee be taxed against the same party.” If these cases are treated as one, then only one attorney’s fee should be assessed and not sixty-one. Again, only the York case was heard by the Court and the assessment of the costs in that cause amply covers the costs for all the cases. CONCLUSION The statutes providing for recovery of costs, i.e., Sections 14.1-181, 14.1-196, 14.1-197 and 14.1-198 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, did not and do not contemplate that where there is a series of appeals arising out of a single set of facts and a single happening and this Court hears one of such cases and none of the others are briefed or argued, that such should be separately assessed in all the causes. Especially should this be true where the losing party is the same in all such orders. Accordingly, petitioner prays that no costs be 7 assessed in the sixty cases that were reversed and annulled in conjunction with York. Respectfully submitted, JAMES A. H. FERGUSON Of Counsel for Appellee James A. H. Ferguson City Attorney 101 Municipal Building Danville, Virginia 24541 William H. Fuller, III Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Masonic Building Danville, Virginia 24541 John W. Carter 124 South Market Street Danville, Virginia 24541 Counsel for Appellee CERTIFICATE I certify that on or before the date of filing of this petition three copies thereof were mailed to opposing counsel, viz: S. W. Tucker, 214 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III and Melvyn Zarr, 10 Colum bus Circle, New York, New York 10019; Ruth L. Harvey, 453 South Main Street, Danville, Virginia 24541; and J. L. Williams, 212 North Ridge Street, Danville, Virginia 24541. JAMES A. H. FERGUSON 8