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 April 06, 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do, however, recognize, that the opinion of the district court contained in the Record Excerpts at pages 5-16 has been superseded by the amended opinion.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