McCain v Abel Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Public Court Documents
July 7, 1972
4 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. McCain v Abel Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1972. ecd14c4d-bc9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9c8d62d7-34ad-46ed-ad82-2051c57e4e05/mccain-v-abel-reply-brief-for-plaintiffs-appellants. Accessed November 19, 2025.
Copied!
I
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 72-1373
(
THOMAS C. MCCAIN, et al..
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v .
C. ASHLEY ABEL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
JACK GREENBERG
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON NORMAN CHACHKIN10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019
LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 1611 Crestwood
Columbia, South Carolina 29206
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
\
I N D E X
Page
TABLE OF CASES:
Atlantic Coastline R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 u.S. 281 (1970) --------------------- 1
Mttchum v. Foster, U.S. , 40 U.S.L.W. 4737(1972) --------- 3TZT----- ZZZT------- :------------- i
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) ---------------- 2
STATUTES:
28 U.S.C. § 2283 ------------------------------------- 1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ------------------------------------- 1
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 72-1373
THOMAS C. MCCAIN, et al..
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
C. ASHLEY ABEL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief
in this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States squarely
held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an exception to the anti-injunction
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Mitch urn v. Foster, ____ U.S. _____,
40 U.S.L.W. 4737 (1972). In so doing it also held that Atlantic
Coastline R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398
U.S. 281 (1970) was inapplicable to a § 1983 action. Thus,
the Court reversed and remanded a district court decision that
rested on the precise grounds relied upon by the court below
xn this action.
Although it is now therefore clear that the decision below
must be reversed, Plaintiffs-Appellants urge that this Court
also hold that the action may not be dismissed on alternative
grounds. That is, we contend that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
3^ (1971) also has no application here for the reasons set out
in our brief in chief. We reiterate that as to the non-state
pupil plaintiffs there is no bar whatsoever to their
having their rights vindicated in federal court in the first
instance.
Respectfully submitted,
cJACK GREENBERG
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON NORMAN CHACHKIN10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019
LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 1611 Crestwood
Columbia, South Carolina 29206
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have served two copies of the
Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants on counsel for the
Defendants-Appellees by depositing the same in the United
Spates mail, airmail postage prepaid, addressed to Timothy G.
Quinn, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, P.o. Box 11549,
Columbia, South Carolina 29211.
Dated this 7th day of July, 1972.
X
LAttorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
V<L
2