| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Browder v. Gayle ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Browder v. Gayle
''Browder v. Gayle'', 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956),〔 affirmed per curiam, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956); full text at ()〕 was a case heard before a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Montgomery and Alabama state bus segregation laws. The panel consisted of Middle District Judge Frank Minis Johnson, Northern District Judge Seybourn Harris Lynne, and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Rives.〔https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6352107186205745283&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002&as_vis=1〕 The District Court ruled 2-1, with Lynne dissenting, on June 5, 1956 that bus segregation was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment protections for equal treatment.〔(Browder v. Gayle ), District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division, June 19, 1956, retrieved October 29, 2005.〕
The state and city appealed, and the decision was summarily affirmed by the United States Supreme Court on November 13, 1956.〔Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956).〕 A motion for clarification and for rehearing was denied on December 17, 1956.〔352 U.S. 950 (1956).〕
==Case history==
Shortly after beginning the Montgomery Bus Boycott in December 1955, black community leaders began to discuss filing a federal lawsuit to challenge the City of Montgomery and Alabama bus segregation laws. They sought a declaratory judgment that Alabama state statutes and ordinances of the city of Montgomery providing for and enforcing racial segregation on "privately" operated buses were in violation of Fourteenth Amendment protections for equal treatment.
The cause of action was brought under Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation, specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983.〔http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1981.pdf〕 The United States District Court had original jurisdiction to hear this case under Title 28 of U.S.C. because it is a federal question (§ 1331)〔http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/pdf/USCODE-2011-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1331.pdf〕 and because it concerns civil rights (§ 1343).〔http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1343.pdf〕 A three-judge district court panel was required under 28 U.S.C. § 2281〔http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title28/pdf/USCODE-2009-title28-partVI-chap155-sec2281.pdf〕 for the granting of an interlocutory, or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement of a state statute by restraining the action of a state officer, such as an official of the Alabama Public Service Commission. The court held that, given the admission of city officials that they were enforcing state statutes, a three-judge court had jurisdiction over the case.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Browder v. Gayle」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|