Correspondence from Quigley to Whyte (Clerk); Application for Convening of Three Judge District Court

Public Court Documents
September 19, 1986

Cite this item

Correspondence from Quigley to Whyte (Clerk); Application for Convening of Three Judge District Court preview

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

LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
- Unknown Firm
Matter
- Chishom v. Edwards (Chisom v. Roemer) (Perschall v. State of Louisiana)
Case
- Chisom v. Edwards
U.S. state
- Louisiana, Georgia
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 422be7bb-f211-ef11-9f89-0022482f7547

Cite this item

Case Files, Chisom Hardbacks. Docket Sheet; Order; Order Amending Opinion, 1986. 5918bc4e-f211-ef11-9f89-0022482f7547. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0956c29a-37f1-4f42-a848-bb18daead355/docket-sheet-order-order-amending-opinion. Accessed April 06, 2025.

Copied!

    rN THE uNrrED srATEs DrsrRrcr couRr I ri T E lf
rOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ; ''J iUI .*/

RALEIGH DIVISION ,-,iil' . lj lgg3

ss

RALPH GINGLES, €t dI., )

)
Plaintiffs )

)

J.. IitU;J l_ilrJN,4Rii,,.:t.i;?l(
U.,S. Dt-S'i t?lCT CCu?f

E. L)iSl-. i,lo.OAil.

) NO. 81-803-Crv-5
)

ORDER
)

Defendants )

;,'.
Presently before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to con-

.,' sider additional evidence filed November 22, 1983 to which plain-
,-, tiffs have attached proposed new exhibits 90, 9I and 92. Plaintiffs

,,.,,." also ask leave to file additional exhibits relating to post-trial

' County. In a response to this motion defendants have stated that
they have no objection to the courtrs consideration of plaintiffsl

*l*6,$n proposed exhibits 90, 91 and 92 but do strenuously resist the

introduction of further evidence by the plaintiffs relating to

other post-trial elections. Defendants have attached to their
response defendantsr proposed exhibits 65, 66 and 67 .

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion and defendantsr
: response the court has concluded to allow the filing of plaintiffs'

exhibits 90, 91 and 92 and defendantsr exhibits 65, 66 and 67.
'.,,.,. The court will consider these exhibits to the extent that they

' are found to be relevant and otherwise admissible in evidence.

, - The motion of plaintiffs for leave to file additional exhibits

VS.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, €t dI.,



relating to

Mecklenburg

:*:;':

post-trial elections

County is denied.

'.o-"o

held in jurisdictions other than

December 5, 1983.

sditlS

a,'"

F. T. DUPREE,
UNITED STATES

Paoe )

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.

Correspondence from Quigley to Whyte (Clerk); Application for Convening of Three Judge District Court

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