Defendants' Motion for a Stay (Rule 62)

3 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Redistricting
Matter
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
Case
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 5a629250-e70e-f011-9989-002248226c06

Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Defendants' Motion for a Stay (Rule 62), 2000. 5a629250-e70e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bf05620d-e018-448c-9f72-867367d91c95/defendants-motion-for-a-stay-rule-62. Accessed November 21, 2025.

Copied!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EASTERN DIVISION

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3)

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY
(Rule 62)

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of North
Carolina, et al.,

Defendants.

N
r

N
f

N
o

N
a

N
e

N
a

N
o

N
d

N
N

N
S

Defendants, pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully request

the Court to stay its March 7, 2000 Opinion, order, and injunction so that the congressional elections

process which has already begun may continue as scheduled and so that irreparable injuries to the

State, to the public interest, to the voters and to the candidates may be avoided. Because of the

urgency of this matter, defendants respectfully request the Court to act on this motion immediately.

In support of this motion, defendants rely on their Emergency Application For Stay, which

is being simultaneously filed with the United States Supreme Court because of the urgency with

which this matter must be resolved in order to avoid delay and disruption of the State’s congressional

primaries. A copy of that Emergency Application is attached hereto. Especially pertinent to this

motion are the numerous cases cited in Emergency Application in which courts have permitted

elections to go forward even after districting plans have been invalidated.

Respectfully submitted, this the 10th day of March, 2000.

MICHAEL F. EASLEY

ATTORNEY GENERAL

A po~
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

Chief Deputy Attorney General

N.C. State Bar No. 4112

iare B. Smiley dr

Special Deputy Attorney eral

N. C. State Bar No. 7119

Pn Till
Norma S. Harrell

Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. State Bar No. 6654

N.C. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 629

Raleigh, N.C. 27602

(919) 716-6900

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion for

a Stay in the above captioned case upon all parties by fax and by depositing these documents in the

United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows:

Robinson O. Everett

Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg.

301 W. Main Street

P.O. Box 586

Durham, NC 27702

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Adam Stein

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins,

Gresham & Sumter, P.A.

Suite 2

312 W. Franklin Street

Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Todd A. Cox

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
1444 1 Street NW, 10 Floor

Washington, DC 20005

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

iu 3. By Lug
This the 10th day of March, 2000.

Tiare B. Smiley

Special Deputy Attorney al

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.

Defendants' Motion for a Stay (Rule 62)

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in