Correspondence from Karlan to Ganucheau (Clerk); from Ganucheau to Counsel for Appellees
Public Court Documents
July 13, 1987 - July 14, 1987
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Chisom Hardbacks. Correspondence from Karlan to Ganucheau (Clerk); from Ganucheau to Counsel for Appellees, 1987. 53bf79ec-f211-ef11-9f89-0022482f7547. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d10898d4-2c62-43b1-882f-9e4352850e68/correspondence-from-karlan-to-ganucheau-clerk-from-ganucheau-to-counsel-for-appellees. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
July 14, 1987
Hon. Gilbert F. Ganucheau
Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Re: No. 87-3463, Chisom v. Edwards
Dear Mr. Ganucheau:
On July 10, 1987, the Court of Appeals remanded this case to
the district court (E.D. La., Charles Schwartz, Jr., J.) for the
limited purpose of allowing that court to amend its written
opinion of May 1, 1987. Appellants received a copy of the
district court's subsequent order amending its opinion and a copy
of the amended opinion on July 14, 1987.
Appellants had, however, already filed our brief and record
excerpts. We mailed the brief and record excerpts to your office
on July 9, 1987, and they were apparently received on July 13,
1987.
Appellants do not believe that the district court's
amendment changes the thrust of our arguments, although it
renders unnecessary the discussion on pages 18-20 of our brief of
why the district court erred in concluding that Wells v. Edwards,
347 F. Supp. 453 (M.D. La. 1973) (three-judge cburt), aff'd, 409
U.S. 1095 (1974) (per curiam), construed section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. Particularly in light of the fact that we have moved
to expedite this appeal, we see no need to amend the substance of
our brief.
We do, however, recognize, that the opinion of the district
court contained in the Record Excerpts at pages 5-16 has been
superseded by the amended opinion. We therefore ask your
guidance regarding how best to proceed so that the Court will
have before it the current version of the district court's
opinion and will not be confused by references in our brief.
Respectfully,
Lq,k_
Pamela S. Karlan
Counsel for Appellants
cc: all counsel
NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR • (212) 219-1900 • NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013
410
Pnitett $tates Court of c&ppeals
GILBERT F. GANUCHEAU
CLERK
TO: COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES
FIFTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
July 13, 1987
No. 87-3463 - CHISOM, ET AL. vs. EDWARDS, ET AL.
TEL. 504-589-6514
600 CAMP STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
In regards to the case identified above, the following motion has
been filed: MOTION OF APPELLANTS TO EXPEDITE THE APPEAL
This motion will be presented for ruling without oral argument on
this date: JULY 21, 1987
Any response to the motion must be filed by opposing counsel on
or before that date to be considered in the ruling.
The date shown above indicates when the matter will be forwarded
for ruling and does not mean that any action will be completed by
then. Counsel should allow at least ten (10) days thereafter
before inquiring about the Court's ruling.
Mr. William P. Quigley
Ms. Pamela S. Karlan
Mr. Kendall L. Vick
Very truly yours,
GILBERT F. GANUCHEAU, Clerk
By:
Deputy C rk
D P.S. to counsel filing Motion: If this block is checked, please
forward a certificate of interested persons as required by Local
Rule 27.5 within the foregoing time period.
MOT-1
Rev. 7/85