Order to Amend Previous Memorandum Opinion and Order

Public Court Documents
November 27, 1989

Order to Amend Previous Memorandum Opinion and Order preview

4 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Order to Amend Previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1989. 261d3674-257c-f011-b4cc-6045bdffa665. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5d40dc6e-0d5f-43b1-83a8-7818b3cadccf/order-to-amend-previous-memorandum-opinion-and-order. Accessed November 07, 2025.

    Copied!

    7:88—cv—-00154 

Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund 
16th Floor 
99 Hudson St. 
New York, NY 10013 

 



  

FILED 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 27 1983 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS V. 5. DISTRICT COU 
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION CLERK'S, OFFICE 

BY.....% JW... . DEPUTY 
LEAGUE OFUNITED LATIN AMERICANS 
CITIZENS (LULAC), COUNCIL #4434S§ 
et al. [S 

Plaintiffs, § 

AND S 
HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION § 
et al. § 

Plaintiff-Intervenors § 

§ 
VV. § MO-88-CA-154 

§ 
JIM MATTOX, et al. § 

State Defendants § 

AND § 
JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD AND § 

JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ § 

ORDER 

BEFORE THIS COURT is the State Defendants’ Motion to alter 

or Amend this Court'’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of November 8, 

1989 in the above-captioned cause. After this Court’s Order was 

signed and entered, it was brought to the attention of the Court 

that there were some clerical errors and omissions in this Court's 

Order. This Court is of the opinion that the State Defendants’ 

Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that this Court’s previous Memorandum Opinion 

and Order be amended in part. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the items telephonically 

communicated to this Court by Plaintiffs’ Counsel be amended as 

follows: 

1. The top of page 13 just before Finding of Fact number 

 



  

four be amended to reflect the following: 

Plaintiff-Intervenors from Dallas County include Joan Winn 

White, Fred Tinsley and Jesse Oliver. 

2. The last line of the second paragraph of Finding of Fact 

number eight on page 17 is amended to read, " ... greater than 

fifty percent (50%) Hispanic voting age population were possible." 

3. The second sentence cof the first full paragraph on page 

21 is amended to read, "Minority residents are concentrated largely 

in the Northeastern, East Central and Southeastern sections of 

Midland County." 

4. Conclusion of Law number 16, as continued at the top of 

page 90, line one, is amended to include "Hispanic" after "Black" 

and the appropriate comma. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that items 1-3, 6 & 11 of the State 

Defendants’ Motion are hereby GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in connection with item 5 of the State 

Defendants’ Motion that Finding of Fact 20.a. on page 49 is amended 

as follows: 

Dr. Brischetto analyzed three (3) 1988 countywide judicial 

elections in Travis County. All three elections analyzed were 

County Court at Law Primary Elections. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in connection with item 9 State 

Defendants’ request is GRANTED IN PART to reflect that it was the 

1986 Democratic Primary that was being discussed, rather than the 

 



  

Runoff Election. Item 9 is DENIED in all other respects. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that items 4, 7, 8 & 10 of the State 

Defendants’ Motion are hereby DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's Memorandum opinion 

and Order remains unchanged in al other gespects. 

. A 
SIGNED AND ENTERED this the es day of November, 1989. 

_— . 77 
Are ) i 

7 a ss iF FAA >. 
  

LUCIUS D. BUNTON 
Chief Judge

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.