Howlette v. City of Richmond, Virginia
M. Philmore Howlette and William v. Daniel, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and Richmond Independent Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of Richmond, Virginia, William J. Leidinger, City Manager and H. Jack Lissenden, Director of Finance
Opinion
580 F.2d 704
M. Philmore HOWLETTE and William V. Daniel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and Richmond Independent Taxpayers Association, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, William J. Leidinger, City Manager and H. Jack Lissenden, Director of Finance, Appellees.
No. 78-1296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued July 18, 1978. Decided July 20, 1978.
David M. Shapiro, Caudle & Shapiro, Richmond, Va., for appellants.
Michael W. Smith, Richmond, Va. (Conard B. Mattox, Jr., City Atty., and Andrew J. Brent, Lee F. Davis, Jr., Leslie W. Mullins, Christian, Barton Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
The appellants contest a judgment of the district court upholding the constitutionality of a provision of the charter of the City of Richmond requiring each signature of a qualified voter on a petition for a referendum to be verified before a notary. For reasons adequately stated in the memorandum of the district court, Howlette v. The City of Richmond, C/A No. 78-0215-R (April 14, 1978), we conclude that the ordinance is valid. Cf. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 , 94 S.Ct. 1296 , 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974).
2
The appellants also complain of the court's rulings concerning designation of a class representative, and they question whether the plaintiffs are acting independently of the defendants. Inasmuch as the appellants were allowed to intervene, the court's designation of the plaintiffs as the representatives of the class is of little moment. The intervenors in effect also protected the class. If they had prevailed on the merits, the relief afforded them would have inured to the benefit of the class.
3
The judgment is affirmed. The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming constitutionality of city referendum procedure requiring that the signatures of qualified voters on a referendum petition be verified by a notary and subjecting those who take the oath to possible criminal liability for perjury)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.