Correspondence from Tidwell to Clerk
Public Court Documents
September 16, 1980

2 pages
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 June 17, 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