Joint Motion and Order for continuance to 6-28-82

Public Court Documents
June 22, 1982

Cite this item
Joint Motion and Order for continuance to 6-28-82 preview

1 page

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Major v. Treen Hardbacks. Joint Motion and Order for continuance to 6-28-82, 1982. d8ea0e17-ca03-ef11-a1fd-6045bddbf119. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8c155c75-ccb6-4dc1-aa83-2eec9c00714e/joint-motion-and-order-for-continuance-to-6-28-82. Accessed November 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    CLSON LL JONES 
i 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF) LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, et al., Civil Action No. 82-1192 

Plaintiffs Section D (C) 

-against- THREE JUDGE COURT CASE 
  

  DAVID C. TREEN, etc., et al, CLASS ACTION 

JOINT MOTION AND ORDER   

On motion of the parties, it appearing that the hearing on 

plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to delay qualifications for 

the elections scheduled for the Fall, 1982 for members of the United States 

I Congress is unnecessary because the parties have agreed that if the United 

States Department of Justice accepts the plan of apportionment evidenced by 

Act 20 of the Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature, plaintiffs 

will not seek to enjoin qualifications on candidates under that plan, it 

further appearing that if the United States Department of Justice rejects 

said plan, the defendants will not oppose a motion to enjoin qualifications 

now set for July 5-9, 1982 to avoid confusion of the electorate because no 

plan of apportionment would then exist, 

IT IS ORDERED that the pretrial conference scheduled in this 

matter for June 23 and the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary 

injunction to delay the qualification period which hearing is scheduled 

for June 28, 1982 are both continued, to be reset by the parties, if necessary. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing herein shall be deemed to be 

an admission by the parties as to the constitutionality of Act 20 and the 

| defendants’ pending motion for reconsideration of the partial summary judgment 

is not affected by this Order or by agreement of the parties. 

| DATED: New Orleans, Louisiana, this/& Hay of June, 1932. 

Who Colles 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
  

DATE OF BITRY —— er oem

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.