Order -- Motion of Pugh, Griffin, McCullough, Eaglin, Trotter, Boger, etc., to intervent allowed

Public Court Documents
July 22, 1983

Cite this item
Order -- Motion of Pugh, Griffin, McCullough, Eaglin, Trotter, Boger, etc., to intervent allowed preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Order -- Motion of Pugh, Griffin, McCullough, Eaglin, Trotter, Boger, etc., to intervent allowed, 1983. 9386b07c-d492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b172c565-04fe-4558-aef2-018efeaf965a/order-motion-of-pugh-griffin-mccullough-eaglin-trotter-boger-etc-to-intervent-allowed. Accessed July 06, 2025.

    Copied!

    Oo
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH
RALEIGH DIVISION

COURT
CAROLINA

FNIED
JUt- :l '.119'cti

',IiT'fi{tiisbir
ALAN V. PUGH, €t aI.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., €t a1.,

Defendants

NO. 81-r065-CrV-5

9E!88

Although the complaint in this action contains no direct

reference to a claim that the reapportionment plan questioned

by the plaintiffs discriminates against a minority political party,

the plaintiffs have indicated that they do intend to press such

a claim and to seek appropriate relief based thereon. Assuming

without deciding that such claim can be properly pleaded and proven

in this action, the court is of opinion that such claim should

not be litigated along with the racial discrimination claims con-

tained in this and the case with which it is consolidated for

trial on JuIy 25r 1983, Gingles, et aI. v. Edmisten, €t dI., and

accordingly it is now

ORDERED that the previous order of consolidation

of this case with the Gingles case is withdrawn and the trial

of this case with the Gingles case is continued. This order is

entered without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs herein

to move to intervene in Ging1es, and, if allowed, to prosecute

Page I



to
all their claims upon the

consonant with the claims

trial of

at issue

t
the Gingles case which are

in that case.

JuIy 20, 1983.

. T. DUPREE,
UNITED STATES

Page 2

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