Bailey v. Dixon

holding that one-sentence explanation in order did not violate Rule 58 | holding that one-sentence explanation in order did not violate Rule 58 | finding that the defendant's motion to dismiss, unaccompanied by matters outside the pleadings, could not serve as a Rule 56 motion to preclude the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal | finding that the defendant’s motion to dismiss, unaccompanied by matters outside the pleadings, could not serve as a Rule 56 motion to preclude the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal | single judge may fix time for complying with three-judge desegregation order | “[Ojnce jurisdiction has attached, powers under § 1651(a) should be broadly construed.” | "(O)nce jurisdiction has attached, powers under § 1651(a) should be broadly construed." | appellant, who had been fired, was not required to exhaust administrative remedies which dictated that he bring unfair practice charges before, first, the very person who fired him, and second, the board whose member he had accused of misconduct | appellant, who had been fired, was not required to exhaust administrative remedies which dictated that he bring unfair practice charges before, first, the very person who fired him, and second, the board whose member he had accused of misconduct | district court properly limited a class to avoid justiciability problems