Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Public Court Documents
January 18, 1983

Cite this item
Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, 1983. ddd003e4-d392-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a1f16874-589a-4970-a131-1c260b614d95/defendants-response-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-summary-judgement-and-defendants-cross-motion-for-summary-judgment. Accessed April 06, 2025.

    Copied!

    0‘ d I .
FILED
J!\.N18’I983

.fUCH LEONARD,CLERK
U. 8. DISTRICT COURT
E.DBT.NQ.CAR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLIN
RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et al., NO. 81-803-CIV-5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, et al,,
Defendants.
—and—

ALAN V. PUGH, et al., NO. 81-1066-CIV-5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

-and—

JOHN J. CAVANAGH, et al., NO. 82—545-CIV-5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ALEX K. BROCK, et al.,
Defendants.

vvvvVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

DEFENDANTS'RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Come now the defendants, Alex K. Brock, Robert W.
Spearman, Elloree M. Erwin, Ruth T. Semashko, William A.
Marsh, Jr., and Robert R. Browning, and through counsel

respond in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

Judgment and respectfully move the court pursuant to Rule 56

0‘5 1 l

F.R. Civ. Pro. to enter an order of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants against John J. Cavanagh, et al.,
plaintiffs in No. 82—545-CIV-5, one of the above-captioned
consolidated actions.

As grounds for this motion, the Defendants set
forth the pleadings, affidavits, the deposition of plain-
tiffs' expert, the accompanying memorandum of law , and
affidavits and exhibits attached thereto, which establish
that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the
mOVants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted this the [6 day of
January , 1983.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN,

Attorney General for the
State of Nort C 01'

\.

es Wallace,
D puty Attorney
for Legal Af
North Carolina Department

of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919) 733—3377

  
  

  
 

Norma Harrell
Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorneys General

John Lassiter
Associate Attorney General

Jerris Leonard

Kathleen Heenan

Jerris Leonard & Associates
900 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1020

Washington, D. C. 20006
(202) 872—1095

Attorneys for Defendants

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top