Motion to Affirm

    IN THE 

Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1978 

No. 77-1844 

  

City or MoBILE, ALABAMA, ef al., 
Appellants, 

Vv. 

Wey L. BoLpEN, et al., 
Appellees. 

  

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

  

MOTION TO AFFIRM 

  

  

Epwarp STILL 
601 Title Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

J. U. BLACKSHER 
Larry MENEFFEE 

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603 

JACK GREENBERG 
Eric ScHENAPPER 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 

Counsel for Appellees 

  

   



    

 



INDEX   

PAGE 

QUESTIONS: PRESENTED ook caidiins veo vnminns 1 

STATEMENT ... ose 800020. 080i sts wii 2 

1. The Long History of Voting 
Discrimination Against Blacks 
In Mobile. i, ooo edisieanest 2 

2. The Present Denial of Effective 

Participation In The Political 
{gor ORO LR Cols EOE OE en RE 5 

3. Unresponsiveness of Elected 

Officials To Black Community 
IRECTESES oo nvinnc mis cis ne sins 6 

ARGUMENT . cov oss vinnssnnasiiansiioriveds 8 

CONCLUSION vv: cs iiinviisioiniois « a vie sisiansin sin whe s 20 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES   

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing 
Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 

(VT77) vise iins sn tiaisnc ssn senins 9.11.12 

Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 

508 F.24 1109.(5¢h Cir. .1975) .J. 16 

Blacks United for Lasting Leadership, 
Inc v. City of-Shreveport, 571 
F.2d 248 (5th Ciy. 1978) ..... 0. 12,15  



  

INDEX   

PAGE 

Davis v. Schnell, 81 P.Supp. 372 
(SD. Ala, OAR) os asa an 3 

Ferguson v. Win Parish Police 
Jury. 528 ¥.24 -592 (5th Cir. 
1976)... oii chia ss sh aha eh aus 16 

Gomillion 'v, Lightfoot, 364: U.5. 339 
£19603... uoredinvieveds ao, I... 9 

Graves Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U.S. 
270196). 0. i, Se SER BE He ie 9 

‘Howard v. Adams County Board of 
Supervisors, 453 F.2d 455 

(Sth Cir A972): .. .. f.avddi li... 16 

Kendricks v. Walder, 527 F.2d4 44 

(7th Clr. 1975). ...00cviivnsoioses 11 

Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 
7.24 1239 (5th Cir. 1977)........... 16 

Moore v. Leflore County Board of 

Election Commissioners, 502 
F.2d 62% (5th Civ. 1974)...... .... 16 

Nevett iv. Sides, 571 F.2d 209 :(5th 
Cir. 1978)... ..:.. 0.5... sama. oo; 12,15 

Panior v. Iberville Parish School 
Bd., 536 F.2d 101 {5th Cir. 
1976). .:2. 03. .0: 0.400). Jd. 00. 0. 16 

   



INDEX   

PAGE 

Robinson v. Commissioners Court, 
505 F.2d 674 (5th-Cir. 
1974) ove cininte nin vinintainonets afk wih oe ahs +tncess 16 

Smith v. Allright, 321 U.S. 649 
LA944) oo vrs cis omnia bisa nia soni 3 

Thomasville Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. 
v, Thomas County, 571 F.2d 
257 (5th Cir, 1978). .......: S000, 16 

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 
(IG78Y se tivcne i cine iis esses snes 16 

White v. Resester, 412 U.S. 755 

(1973) 2000 Ln aaa aa 1.8; 
14,16 

Wise v. Lipscomb, 46 U.S.L.W. 4777 

C1978) oct ssc niin sein ia cin vino 17 

~ 3i1 ~-  



    

 



IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1978 

No. 77 -1844 

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al., 

Appellants, 

v. 

WILEY 1. BOLDEN, et al., 

Appellees. 

—— ———— ———————————————— ————— ——— ————— 

On Appeal From The United States Court of 
Appeals For the Fifth Circuit 

MOTION TO AFFIRM   

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 
  

i. Were the concurrent factual findings 

of the courts below, that Mobile's at-large 

election plan is maintained for the purpose of 

discriminating against black voters; clearly 

erroneous? 

2. Should the decision of the Court 

of Appeals be affirmed on the alternative 

ground--considered but not relied on by a 

majority of the Fifth Circuit panel-—-that 

Mobile's at-large election plan had the effect 

of disenfranchising black voters in violation of 

White v,. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)? 
   



  

3. Did the District Court err in adopting 

its own plan where the appellants refused to 

propose any remedial plans and where the Dis- 

trict Court injunction expressly permits state 

and local officials to modify that court plan? 

STATEMENT 
  

Black citizens of Mobile, Alabama, brought 

this action in June, 1975, challenging the 

at-large system of electing members of the 

Mobile City Commission. Following a 6 day 

trial, in which 37 witnesses testified and 153 

documentary exhibits were introduced, and 

following a half-day tour of the city by the 

District Judge, the trial court determined that 

the at-large elections were being used purpose- 

fully and invidiously to discriminate against 

black voters. The salient findings of fact, 

affirmed in all respects by the Court of Appeals 

are as follows: 

1. The Long History Of Voting Discrimination 
Against Blacks in Mobile 
  

  

The '"Redemption' of Alabama by the Bourbon 

Democrats from Federal Reconstruction policies 

culminated with the enactment of various so- 

called Progressive reforms. In Alabama, the 

Progressive movement included disfranchisment of 

   



blacks because they were considered a corrupting 

influence. The 1901 Albama Constitutional 

Convention was called for the primary purpose 

of disenfranchising blacks. The cumulative poll 

tax and grandfather clause were the primary 

devices used to accomplish this. Delegates from 

Mobile led the efforts to remove blacks from 

politics in 1901, and some of these same white 

Mobilians promoted the adoption of an at-large 

elected city commission for Mobile in 1911. 

Only token numbers of blacks were allowed to 

register and vote until passage of the Voting 

Rights Act of=1965. 3.84, pp. 219b=20b,;: 29. 

Alabama operated an all-white Democratic primary 

until well after it was outlawed by this Court 

in “Smith v. Allright, 321 0.8..649. L1944)...4A 
  

white state legislator from Mobile was chiefly 

responsible for the enactment of interpretation 

tests as a device to prevent blacks from voting 

after the white primary was struck down. The 

interpretation tests were declared unconstitu- 

tional by the federal court in Mobile. Davis 

v, Schnell, ‘81 F.Supp. 872 {8.D. Ala. 1948), 

aff'd £336:0.9.:933:(1949), 

  

   



  

In 1974, the Mobile County legislative 

delegation sponsored a special law to enable 

Mobile to change to a Mayor-Council form of 

government after a referendum election. A 

former State Senator from Mobile who partici- 

pated in the law's passage testified that the 

local delegation chose to provide for at-large 

election of the proposed council, rather than 

single-member districts, because of racial 

cond iderBiibns: 

Q. Why was the opposition to 
single-member districts so strong? 

A. At that time, the reason 

argued in the legislative delega- 
tion, very simply was this, that if 
you do that, then the public is going 
to come out and say that the Mobile 
Legislative Delegation has just 
passed a bill that would put blacks 
in City office. Which it would have 
done had the City voters adopted the 

Mayor-Council form of govenment. 

The District Court found, as a matter of 

fact, that "[t]hese factors prevented any effec- 

tive redistricting which would result in any 

benefit to the black voters passing until the 

State was redistricted by a Federal Court order." 

J.S., p. 30h, 

   



- 5 = 

2. The Present Denial Of Effective 
Participation In The Political Process 
  

  

In the opinion of the court below, the 

total absence of black elected officials 

in Mobile was Ylolnly one! indication that 

local political processes are not equally open 

[to blacks). 3.8, °p. 7b. The District Judge 

also relied upon evidence presenting a thorough 

analysis of racial politics in Mobile. 

Expert statisticians and political scien- 

tists analyzed most of the local elections 

in ‘the city tana county over the ‘past 15 

years. The unsuccessful candicacies of 4 

black citizens who sought school board seats, 3 

blacks who ran for city commission and 23 black 

candidates for at-large legislative seats 

were thoroughly explored, as were the racial 

campaign tactics used to stir up white backlash 

and defeat several white candidates who dared 

to espouse some interests of the black community. 

  

1/ The City of Mobile contains approximately 
two-thirds of the population of Mobile County. 
The District Court considered the election 
experiences of black candidates in county-wide 
races to be relevant as well as to an analysis 

of icity politics, J.5., pp. ob=10b, 13b, n.7.  



    

While most white candidates actively seek black 

votes as well as white votes, there was uniform 

agreement among the experts and politicians that 

to be successful a candidate must be careful not 

to be tagged with the "bloc [black] vote," which 

was tantamount to the "kiss of death," according 

to the City's own expert political scientist. 

All of the witnesses (except one defendant city 

commissioner) agreed that it would be difficult 

if not possible for a black candidate to over- 

come the solid racially polarized voting pat- 

terns in Mobile and win an at-large election. 

Most of the prominent leaders and politicians in 

the black community testified at trial, and 

without exception they agreed that the futility 

of the effort prevented them from even con- 

sidering running for the city commission under 

the at-large system. The District’ Court ‘ac- 

cepted the opinion of plaintiffs' expert politi- 

cal scientist that black voting strength is 

"basically cancelled or negated in the at-large 

structure in the Mobile City elections." 

3. Unresponsiveness Of Elected Officials 
To Black Community Interests 
  

  

Much of the long trial was devoted to 

evidence of how unfairly Mobile's all-white 

government has treated black citizens. The 

 



District Court found that "[t]he at-large elected 

city commissioners have not been responsive to 

the: minorities" meeds.J.8., p. 11B." To support 

this finding, the court's opinion refers first to 

continuing racial discrimination by the city in 

employment. The court still monitors compliance 

with its earlier decree ordering desegregation of 

the Mobile Police Department. Id. Other federal 

court orders were required to desegregate public 

facilities in the City of Mobile. 3.8 p. 120. 

Blacks have been appointed to important govern- 

mental boards and committees in only token 

numbers. J.S., pp. .12B=14b. : Black residential 

areas have suffered inequitable neglect with 

respect to such vital services as drainage 

control, paving and resurfacing streets and the 

placement of sidewalks. J.5., DBs 4307171). 

Perhaps most importantly, the court found 

that city commissioners have been insensitive 

to long-standing complaints of police brutality 

directed against blacks and the continuing 

recurrence of cross burnings. In particular, 

the trial judge was critical of the "timid and 

slow reaction" of city government in investigat- 

ing and disciplining seven white Mobile police  



  

officers who actually carried out a "mock lynch- 

ing" of a black suspect on a downtown street 

corner. It was confirmed finally that these 

officers placed a rope around the suspect's neck, 

threw it over a live oak branch, and pulled the 

black man to his tiptoes. The court found that 

the "sluggish and timid response" of elected city 

officials to the lynching incident "is another 

manifestation of the low priority given to the 

needs of black citizens and of the political fear 

of a white backlash vote when black citizens’ 

needs are at stake." J.S., p. 19b. 

ARGUMENT 

I. Notwithstanding appellants' extensive 

discussion of the meaning and application of 

the dilution rule of White v. Regester, 412 

U.5.°755° (1973), ‘the decisions below rest, in the 

  

first instance, not merely on the discriminatory 

impact of the at-large election system, but on a 

finding of fact that Mobile's system of electing 

Commissioners is motivated by an unconstitu- 
  

tional desire to discriminate against blacks. 

J.8. Sipp. 12a, -30b." ‘This case thus presents 

primarily an application of Gomillion v. Light-   

   



  

foot; 7364 0.8, 339 (1960), and Arlington Heights 
  

v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 

0.8:2252 (C1977). 

  

The "district court made a finding of 

discriminatory intent after an exhaustive 

analysis of the evidence presented at a six day 

trial’ J.8., pp. 2860-310. The court of 

appeals carefully scrutinized the record and 

concluded that the district judge's detailed 

findings of fact were not clearly et totiedus and 

that they compelled a finding of discriminatory 

intent. J.S.,, p. "1223. "This Court does mot 

ordinarily 'undertake to review concurrent 

findings of fact by two courts below in the 

absence of a very obvious and exceptional 

showing of error." Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde 

Co.,: 336 U.8.:271, 275.(196]1), No such unusual 

  

circumstances are present here. 

The record contains ample evidence to 

support the finding that discriminatory intent 

lay behind the decision of the legislature to 

maintain the at-large election of Commissioners 

in Mobile. Until 1965 blacks were largely unable 

to register in Mobile or elsewhere in Alabama, 

and racial discrimination in voting had been the 

announced state policy since at least 1901. The 

district court found, based on the direct testi-  



  

- 10 - 

mony of several state legislators who partici- 

pated in consideration of redistricting bills for 

Mobile, that the legislature would not pass "any 

effective redistricting which would result in any 

benefit to black: voters.” . .J.S8., Pp. .30b... At~ 

large elections were found to effectively disen- 

franchise blacks in Mobile because of a particu- 

larly virulent hostility by white voters, who 

have not only voted as a bloc against any black 

candidate for any office in Mobile, but have also 

repeatedly defeated white candicates who have 

been notably responsive to black needs. J.S., p. 

17b-10b.. After detailed analysis of all the 

election returns, the district court considered 

and rejected appellants’ contention at trial 

that, just because blacks sometimes vote for 

winners in elections. that are not racially 

polarized, they wield an effective '"swing vote." 

Against this background of historical 

discrimination against black voters in Alabama, 

and in light of a present legislative practice of 

refusing to adopt redistricting measures that 

might result in the election of blacks, the 

courts below were entirely justified in conclud- 

ing that the maintenance of at-large voting in 

   



- 11 - 

this particular case was racially motivated. 

Arlington Heights v. Mewtropolitan Housing Corp., 

supra, 429 U.S. at 266-68. The lower courts did 

  

not ignore appellants' assertion that the at- 

large elections have been used for over half a 

century because of corruption problems in 1911; 

they merely made a factual determination that 

that somewhat implausible explanation was not the 

actual reason for maintaining the present method 

of election.2/ 

Appellants suggest the courts below adopted 

a rule of law that discriminatory intent must be 

inferred whenever a legislature fails to adopt a 

districting plan it knows is favorable to blacks. 

J.8., PDP. 7, 24-26. "Appellants point ‘tono 

language in either opinion adopting such a rule, 

and none is to be found. On “the contrary, the 

same panel of the Fifth Circuit which affirmed 

a finding of discriminatory intent in this case 

  

2 The decisions below express no preference 

for single-member districts as opposed to 
at-large elections from a political science 
standpoint. Beyond the issue of racial discrimi- 
nation, political commentators disagree whether 

the purported greater "efficiency" of at-large 
elected local governments can offset their high 
price of political control by strong financial 
interests and the loss of grass-roots input. 

See Kendricks v. Walder, 527 F.2d 44, 51-54 (7th 
Cir. 1975) (Pell, J., dissenting). 
   



    

- 12 - 

held in two companion cases that such intent had 

not been adequately demonstrated, even though 

both of those cases involved the same circum- 

stances which appellants claim mandate a finding 

of ‘intent under the Pifth Circuit's decisions. 

Nevett v. Sides, i571 PF.24 209 (5th::Cir. +1978); 
  

Blacks United for Lasting Leadership, Inc. v. 

City of Shreveport, 571 F.2d 248 45th Cir. 1978). 

  

  

Appellants argue that appellees were obligated 

to establish not only that maintenance of the 

at-large plan was motivated in part by a racial- 

ly discriminatory purpose, but also that that 

plan would not have resulted even absent that 

unlawful purpose; the burden of proof as to the 

latter issue, however, was clearly on appellants. 

Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 

429 .0.8..:252,.2709,: n.21 (1978). The decisions 

below do: not sound the "death knell of the 

  

Commission form of government' outside of Mobile, 

and even there do not forbid the retention of 

important aspects of the Commission system in 

Mobiles) 

  

3 The appellants are free, for example, to 
establish a triumvirate of elected executive 
officials and to permit a member of the single- 
member district council to also run for and hold 
such an executive position. 

 



  

- 13 - 

Neither did the decisions below adopt a 

"tort" standard of intent, as claimed by appel- 

Yantsindi Se, cppiicty 113, The district court did 

hold "that the present dilution of black 

Mobilians is a natural and foreseeable consequent 

of the at-large system imposed in 1911," and 

"that the evidence supports the tort standard as 

advocated by the plaintiffs." J.S.," pp. 29p-30b. 

But the opinion explicitly stated: "However, 

this court prefers not to base its decision on 

this theory," 3.8., pvp.  '30b. Rather, the trial 

judge based his finding of purposeful discrimina- 

tion on direct evidence of the legislature's 

racial ‘motives. J.S., pp. 29b-31b. The court of 

appeals affirmed on this ground as well. J.S., 

P.'141., 

The courts below adopted no general rule 

about the validity of at-large elections or the 

Commission form of government, but merely 

determined on the specific evidence before 

them that respondents had established discrimina- 

tory intent. Such a finding, as the disposition 

of the companion cases shows, does not purport 

to dictate the outcome of other litigation 

regarding the use of at-large elections or the 

Commission form of government, and affirmance by  



    

this Court of that factual finding on the record 

in this particular case will not establish any 

new legal principle. Under these circumstances 

the Court should adhere to the '"two court rule" 

and decline to . review that factual finding. 

2; Whether the diluting effect of 

Mobile's at-large elections was sufficient by 

itself to warrant relief under White v. Regester   

is only an alternative ground for affirming the 

decision below. In the court of appeals only one 

judge, specially concurring, found liability on 

that basis, and appellants do not purport to find 

in his one-sentence concurring opinion a substan- 

tial ground for: appeals - JuS., pv 7a. The 

district court concluded that the at-large plan, 

in addition to its unconstitutional purpose, also 

had an unconstitutional impact. But itis: not 

the practice of this Court to grant plenary 

review to decide the conrrectness of independent 

alternative grounds available to support other- 

wise proper decisions. 

Appellants assert that the court of appeals 

adopted a number of inappropriate rules of laws, 

but are able to point to no language in the 

opinion below incorporating these alleged rules 

 



= 15 y= 

Appellants contend, for example, that the Fifth 

Circuit in this case held "in effect" that the 

existence of racially polarized voting was of 

"controlling significance," yet concede that the 

rule actually articulated by the same panel in a 

companion case uses polarized voting ''merely as 

the starting point for further constitutional 

analysis? oJ.8. pid. Appellants claim the 

court of appeals "effectively" required that 

electoral systems be so structured as to guaran- 

tee the election of minority candidates, J.S., 

pp. 6, 17, but in two companion cases the same 

panel declined to order the use of single-member 

districts which would have thus assisted minority 

candidates. Appellants advance a number of 

assertions regarding facts in this case relevent 

to White, urging, for example, that blacks in 

Mobile can participate in a meaningful way in the 

political process and that the all-white govern- 

ment there 1s fairly responsive to minority 

needs, :J.8., pp. 7-8; the. findings of. the dis- 

trict court, however, were to the contrary on 

each of those issues, and those findings were 

  

4/ Nevett 'v. Sides, S571'F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 
1978); Blacks United for Lasting Leadership, 
Inc. .v. City of Shreveport, 57) F.2d . 248 (53th 
Cir.~1978). 

  

  

   



  

  

  
  

- 16 - 

not, and are not claimed to be, clearly erroneous. 

The alternative ground available under 

White v. Regester and noted by the concurring   

opinion and the district court represents merely 

a routine application of White v. Regester 
  

as clarified "by "a longline of icarefully con- 

SM sidered appellate decisions.=' Appellants did 

not generally question in the court of appeals 

the established Fifth Circuit law in this area 

and did not assert that the principles of White 

v. Regester should not be applied to city elec-   

tions. Appellants did argue below that White v. 

Regester had been modified by Washington v. 
    

Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), and that an at-large 

election plan which had the effect of disen- 

  

5¢ Thomasville Branch of the N.A.A.C.P., v. 
Thomas County, 571 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1973); 
Kirksey.v., Broad of Supervisers, ..554 F.2d. 139 
{5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. 
(1977); ‘Panior v. Iberville Parish School Bd., 
536..F.2d 101 {5th Cir. 1976):. Ferguson,v. Winn 
Parish Police Jury, 528 F.2d. 592 (5th Cir. 
1976); Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 508 
F.24..1109..¢(5h, Cir... 1975); Robinson v. Commis— 
sioners Court, 505 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1974); 
Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election 

Commigesioners, 502 7.24 621 (5th Cir. 1974): 
Howard v. Adams County Board of Supervisors, 

  

  

  

      

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

4537 .2d 455. (5th Cir.), cert denied 407:U.S. 925 

(£1972). 
  

 



-17 - 

franchising blacks was nonetheless valid unless 

motivated by a discriminatory purpose; on that 

6/ issue, however, appellants prevailed —/ and they 

do not seek review of that aspect of the deci- 

sion below. 

3. The Jurisdictional Statement contains 

a question regarding the remedy fashioned by the 

district court, and the history of that issue is 

delineated, but the matter 1s not discussed at 

length in the body of the Jurisdictional State- 

ment.  J.S.; "pp. 44 ,:15-16; 

The appropriateness of the remedy was 

properly analyzed by the court of appeals. 

J.S.5° pp. 15a-17ai Appellants inexplicably 

refused in “the "district court to offer any 

plan for the conduct of elections or the crea- 

tion of single-member districts. Under that 

cicumstance it was the obligation "of the 

federal court to devise and impose a reapportion- 

ment plan." Wise v. Lipscomb, 46 U.S.L.W. 4777, 
  

4779 (1978). Manifestly some alteration in 

Mobile's method of election was required to 

remedy the proven violation, and since the 

  

6/ Appellants maintain that, for the reasons 
stated in the concurring opinion of Judge Wisdom 
in Nevett, the court of appeals decision was 

erroneous in this regard. Were probable juris- 
diction noted we would so argue.  



    
  

- 18 - 

plan was ordered by the district court it was 

required to-prefer single-member districts. . 1d. 

Appellants' recalcitrant refusal to assist in 

the framing of a decree forced the district 

court to resolve the details of a plan which it 

would have preferred to leave to state or local 

authorities; ifor this reason the court's idecree 

expressly provides that state and local offi-. 

cialsi‘vetain ‘their ‘authority ‘to alter the ‘plan 

adopted by the court in any respect other than 

the reinstitution of at-large seats. J.S.; pp. 

24-34. 

Appellants imply thdat'Pthe trial court 

abused its discretion by formulating a "strong 

mayor" plan (based on a synthesis of special 

statutes governing Birmingham and Montgomery) 

instead of utilizing the "weak mayor" option 

offered by the general Alabama law. J Suis = Ps 

15, inJd7. In: fact, ‘however, :ilt was at. .the 

instance of appellants' counsel, who during and 

after trial pleaded with the court not to employ 

the "weak mayor" form as a remedy, that the 

district judge appointed a blue-ribbon panel to 

develop an interim "strong mayor" plan. Although y P 

the Jurisdictional Statement suggests the district 

 



  

- 19 - 

judge altered Mobile's non-partisan method of 

electing city official, "3.8., p. 22, n:26, in 

fact the judge retained that practice. Js, 

pp. 7d-9d. Appellants did not attack this 

remedy in the court of appeals, except to argue 

that no remedy was possible because at-large 

elections are an integral part of commission 

government. In any event, the appellants, 

having failed in 1976 to offer the district 

court any proposed remedial plan, cannot now 

complain in this Court about the details of the 

plan actually adopted. 

 



    

- 20 - 

CONCLUSION 
  

For the above reasons the judgment of the 
court of appeals should be affirmed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

  

EDWARD STILL 

601 Title Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

J.U. BLACKSHER 

LARRY MENEFFEE 

1407 Davis Avenue 

Mobile, Alabama 36603 

JACK GREENBERG 

ERIC SCHNAPPER 

Suite 2030 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 

Counsel for Appellees 

 



     



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of August, 

1978, I served three copies of the Motion to Affirm on 

counsel for appellants by depositing them in the United 

States mall, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: 

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

I further certify that all parties reguired to be served 

have been served. 

\ \ 

  

£>
 

a PA fu 0 — fe i 

Eric Schnapper 
Counsel for Appellees 

  

a
 

 



MEILEN PRESS INC —N. Y. C. Po 219