TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jasper C. Davis v. Thomas County, Georgia

Jasper C. DAVIS Et Al., Appellants, v. THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA Et Al., Appellees

Davis v. Thomas Cnty., Ga., 380 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 26, 1967
Docket
No. 23882_1
Judges
Gewin, Ainsworth, Lynne
Citations
380 F.2d 931967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5841

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Contending that the method of election of the eight members of the Board of Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Thomas County provided by an act of the Georgia Legislature in 1911 (1911 Ga.Laws, p. 501), as amended in 1917 (1917 Ga.Laws, p. 394), constituted a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment within the principles articulated in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 , 83 S.Ct. 801 , 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) and nurtured in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 , 84 S.Ct. 526 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), appellants, resident citizens of District No. 1 (Thomasville), filed their complaint for a declaratory judgment that such enactments are unconstitutional.

The thrust of their complaint is that although the present statute requires the election of all eight commissioners, with staggered terms, by the electorate of the county at large, the residence requirements set forth therein result in the representation of District No. 1, with a population of 20,492, by two commissioners, while the remaining four districts with a population of 13,827, are represented by six. This, they insist, amounts to invidious discrimination as a matter of law.

Being of the opinion that the complaint did not meet the test of Reed v. Mann, 237 F.Supp. 22 (N.D.Ga.1964), the district court sustained the motion to dismiss filed in behalf of defendants. This result is clearly vindicated by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 , 87 S.Ct. 1554 , 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (May 22, 1967), which is dis-positive of this appeal. The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 11969: 11974: 21978: 119682026peak 1974 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 864
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) 597
Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 (1967) 165
Reed v. Mann, 237 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ga. 1964) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list