Correspondence from Tidwell to Clerk

2 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Voting Rights
Matter
- Mobile v. Bolden
Case
- Mobile v. Bolden
U.S. state
- Alabama
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- fbf01a93-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae

Cite this item

Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Correspondence from Tidwell to Clerk, 1980. fbf01a93-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/60d8c8ac-e6d8-4ecf-95f2-a9fa36f0237c/correspondence-from-tidwell-to-clerk. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

    HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & ®.. 

LAWYERS 

3000 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 

R O. BOX I23 
C. B. ARENDALL, JR. EDWARD A. HYNDMAN, JR. 

T. MASSEY BEDSOLE MICHAEL D. KNIGHT MOBILE, ALABAMA 

THOMAS G. GREAVES, JR. G. HAMP UZZELLE, I CHAS. C. HAND 

VIVIAN G. JOHNSTON, JR. G.L.LEATHERBURY, JR. 36601 
PAUL W. BROCK WILLIAM C.TIDWELL,I 
ALEX F LANKFORD, II WILLIAM C. ROEDDER, JR. (205) 432-5511 

EDMUND R. CANNON EDWARD S.SLEDGE,II 5 
LYMAN F HOLLAND, JR J. HODGE ALVES,II TELEX: 5O5430C 
J. THOMAS HINES, JR. CAINE O'REAR,II CABLE! HAB 

DONALD F PIERCE RONALD L.DAVIS 
LOUIS E. BRASWELL VIVIAN G. JOHNSTON, II September 16 r 19 80 

HAROLD D. PARKMAN W. ALEXANDER MOSELEY 
G. PORTER BROCK, JR. KATHY DUNSTON JONES 

STEPHEN G. CRAWFORD NEIL C. JOHNSTON 
JERRY A. MCDOWELL GEORGE M.WALKER 
W. RAMSEY MCKINNEY, JR. DAVIS CARR 

A.CLAY RANKIN, IIL 

(18920-1280) 

Mr. Gilbert F. Ganacheau, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 

For The Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street, Room 102 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: Wiley L. Bolden, et al. v. 
City of Mobile, et al. 
Case No. 76-4210 
  

Dear Mr. Ganacheau: 

We request that this supplemental letter brief be sub- 
mitted to the panel currently considering this case on remand 
from the Supreme Court. Copies have been served on counsel 
for all opposing parties. 

On behalf of the Defendant City of Mobile, et al., we 
wish to call the panel's attention to a recent decision by 
another panel of the Fifth Circuit in the case of United 
States v. Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, 

F.24 (slip opinion September 2, 1980). Although 
Defendants do not agree with all said in that opinion, it 
contains a detailed consideration of the Supreme Court's 
Bolden decision, and strongly supports the City of Mobile's 
position as to its meaning and effect with regard to what 
further proceedings are appropriate in this case. 

  

In an opinion authored by Judge Rubin, the majority of 
the Uvalde panel (the third member, Judge Hill, concurred in 
the result) clearly reads the Bolden Supreme Court majority 
as holding not only that incorrect legal principles had been 

applied by the lower courts, but also that under the correct 
legal principles the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs 
failed as a matter of proof to make the necessary factual 
showing. For example, Judge Rubin said:  



Mr. Gilbert F. Banacheau, Clerk 

September 16, 1980 
Page 2 

  

Thus, the [Bolden] plurality's 
rejection of the fifteenth amendment 
and § 2 claims in Bolden may rest 
entirely upon the conclusion that 
no discriminatory motivation was 
shown. 

  

  

Slip Opinion at page 9084 (emphasis added). 

In fact, the Uvalde decision goes even further and 
suggests that the Bolden decision by the Supreme Court is 
basically an evidentiary rather than a legal decision and 
that the Supreme Court majority essentially agreed with this 
panel's legal principles enunciated in Bolden but disagreed 
with its finding that sufficient evidence was presented to 
satisfy those legal standards. Judge Rubin said: 

Although only Justice White appears 
to have wholly adopted this court's 
reasoning in Bolden, a majority appears 
to agree with the legal principles set 
forth in our Bolden opinion but not 
with their application to the evidence 
presented. 
  

  

Slip Opinion at 9085 n.8 (emphasis added). 

Thus, as has been strenuously argued in our previous 
brief, the Bolden majority found as a factual matter that 
the evidence presented in this case did not prove a viola- 
tion of the constitutional or statutory rights (i.e., the 
fourteenth amendment, fifteenth amendment, or § 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act) of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs having 
had their day in court and having failed to carry their 
burden of proving the essential factual elements of their 
claim, this action is due to be dismissed. 

Very truly yours, 

4 

William C. Tidwell, III 
For The Firm 

WCT .wh 

cc: J. U. Blacksher, Esquire 
Edward Still, Esquire 
Jack Greenberg, Esquire «+ 
Honorable Wade H. McCree, Jr. 
Drew S. Days, III, Esquire 
Honorable Virgil Pittman

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.

Correspondence from Tidwell to Clerk

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in