Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Sarah Louise Mccoy, on Behalf of Herself and Otherssimilarly Situated, Appellants, v. Louisiana State Board of Education et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 345 F.2d 720
May 24, 1965
Norman Amaker, New York City, A.P. Tureaud, New Orleans, La., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.
William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., George Ponder, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
For the second time in this case and for the seventh time in recent years, we hold that a state agency is not immune from a suit to enjoin it from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, and the individual members of the state board need not be joined as party defendant. Again we repeat that the State cannot by statute or constitution make the State Board of Education a 'special agency' free from suits to enjoin the board's actions in violation of federally guaranteed rights. McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 915; Louisiana State Board of Education v. Baker, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 911.
There is no merit to other contentions of the Attorney General. In determining what is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), courts look not to terminology, but to 'the substantial effect of the order made.' Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U.S. 188, 63 S.Ct. 163, 87 L.Ed. 176; Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 55 S.Ct. 310, 79 L.Ed. 440; General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430, 53 S.Ct. 202, 77 L.Ed. 408; Ring v. Spina, 2 Cir. 1948, 166 F.2d 546.
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions that the district court take prompt, appropriate action, consistent with this per curiam opinion, to grant the requested relief.