Page 51 of Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Public Court Documents
March 10, 1986

Cite this item

Page 51 of Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law preview

2 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

Includes Correspondence from Pendleton to All Counsel.

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Voting Rights
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
- Larry T. Menefee
- James U. Blacksher
Organizations
- LDF
- Blacksher, Menefee & Stein
Matter
- Dillard v. Crenshaw County
Case
- Dillard v. Crenshaw County
U.S. state
- Alabama
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 0b6fcccd-b7d8-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Page 51 of Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1986. 0b6fcccd-b7d8-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/cbaefd03-064e-49b7-b89b-32cca4445baf/page-51-of-plaintiffs-proposed-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law. Accessed April 19, 2025.

Copied!

    A ~~ 
) 

A 

1 

  

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAw 

405 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING 

P. 0. BOX 1051 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36633-1051 

JAMES Ul. BLACKSHER 5 ” - PN TELEPHONE 
March 6, 1986 

LARRY T. MENEFEE rd : sd (205) 433-2000 

GREGORY B. STEIN 

WANDA J COCHRAN 

TO: All Counsel 

FROM: Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, P.A. 

RE: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, Alabama, er al.   

Gentlemen: 

Please find enclosed page 51 of plaintiffs' proposed finding 
of fact ‘and conclusions of law, which was inadvertently 
omitted from the copies forwarded to you on March 1, 1986. 
We apologize for this omission. 

Best rezards. 

Sincerely, 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 

el Lp) = 

7) LE (Fosattctan A Lela 2 
Nettie Pendleton 

For the firm 

Encl 

 



  

Coffee County 

34. In Sine v. Baxley, No. 1170-8 (M.D.Ala., Dec. 23, 

1971), this court ordered Coffee County to reapportion its 

residency subdistricts for a county commission election system 

that was already being conducted at large. No blacks were 

parties to that action, and no issues were raised regarding 

dilution of black voting strength. This court retained 

Jurisdiction for all purposes, and there is no question that the 

claims against Coffee County under Section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act are in the proper court. 

Talladega County 

35. Unlike the court order in the Coffee County 

lawsuit, the order in Brown v. Gallion, Civil Action No. 

60-697-E (N.D.Ala., Feb. 18, 1970), effected a change for the 

Talladega County Commission from single-member districts to 

at-large elections. The Talladega County Commission had been 

elected from single-member districts since 1919. In 1951, 

pursuant to the post-war policy and practice of the Alabama 

Legislature to shift towards at-large elections, see Findings of 

Fact, supra, a local Act was passed that would have changed 

Talladega County's election system to at-large voting, but it had 

a referendum provision in it. The voters of Talladega County 

- Bl —-

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.

Page 51 of Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in