Legal Opinion
Howard v. McLucas
District Court, M.D. Georgia
Decided October 5, 1987No. Civ. A. 75-168-MAC (WDO)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OWENS, Chief Judge:
The court’s duty at this moment is clear. It must once and for all put to rest the question of whether the proposed consent decree submitted in this case by the plaintiffs and defendants is a fair, adequate, reasonable, and lawful resolution of this class action controversy. This court’s pre vious determination that the consent decree was, in fact, a fair, adequate, reasonable, and lawful resolution of this case has been set aside in part by the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956 (11th Cir.1986). That decision, however, was…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Castaneda v. PartidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Howard v. McLucasCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Davis v. HalpernDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1991
- Fountain v. City of Waycross, Ga.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1988
- 56 Fair empl.prac.cas. 387, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,970 Michael Howard v. John L. McLucas Robert Poss, Intervenors-Appellants. American Federation of Government Employees v. John C. Stetson, Etc., Robert Poss, Intervenors-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989