Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Howard Davis v. A. L. Firment

408 F.2d 1085

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-03-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The complaint in the district court sought an injunction restraining the Orleans Parish School Board and certain of *1086 its officials from preventing a student from attending the public schools because of the manner in which he wore his hair. The district court denied relief. The complainant perfected an appeal to this Court. He then filed a formal motion for a stay of proceedings pending the final disposition of Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District [5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 697 ; cert. denied 393 U.S. 856, 89 S.Ct. 98, 21 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968)].

Citator

Cited by
28 opinions
DAVIS v. FIRMENT,408 F.2d 1085(5th Cir. 1969)
Howard DAVIS, Appellant, v. A.L. FIRMENT et al., Appellees.
No. 25222.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 27, 1969.
William F. Wessel, New Orleans, La., Roy Lucas, Stephen Raphael, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for appellant.

Samuel Rosenberg, Arthur A. Lemann, III, of Polack, Rosenberg Rittenberg, New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before COLEMAN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges, and SKELTON, Judge of the Court of Claimsfn*.
PER CURIAM:
The complaint in the district court sought an injunction restraining the Orleans Parish School Board and certain ofPage 1086its officials from preventing a student from attending the public schools because of the manner in which he wore his hair. The district court denied relief. The complainant perfected an appeal to this Court. He then filed a formal motion for a stay of proceedings pending the final disposition of Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District [5 Cir., 1968,392 F.2d 697; cert. denied393 U.S. 856,89 S.Ct. 98,21 L.Ed.2d 125(1968)]. The application for the stay alleged that the issue in this case was similar to that inFerrell,supra. The stay was granted. Upon final disposition ofFerrell,this appeal was calendared and has been duly heard.

We are of the opinion that there is no material difference between this case andFerrell. Our decision in that case, therefore, must control the disposition of this appeal.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.Page 1096
  1. Sitting by designation as a member of this panel. ↩