League, United Latin Amer Citizens v. Clements

8 Citing briefs

  1. Lopez et al v. Abbott et al

    REPLY in Support of 65 Opposed MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Jose Roberto Juarez, Jr.

    Filed December 15, 2017

    ECF No. 65-1 at 58–86. LULAC leaves no doubt these are legal determinations for the Court, 999 F.2d at 871, and expert testimony on such issues would “invade[ ] the court’s province,” Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1983). Hence, Juárez’s testimony is not helpful on any relevant issue.

  2. Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al v. Ferguson-Florissant School District et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 23, 2015

    Where these conditions are shown, and where the level of black participation in politics is depressed, plaintiffs need not prove any further causal nexus between their disparate socio-economic status and the depressed level of political participation. See, LULAC IV, 999 F.2d at 866-867 emphasis added.) Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidence of voter registration for either African Americans or whites.

  3. DeBoer et al v. Snyder et al

    REPLY to Response re MOTION for Order to Realign the Parties Corrected to Remove Error Messages on page 1

    Filed October 11, 2013

    at 118. See also League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 844 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[I]f the Attorney General changes his views on the merits of the case” to agree with plaintiffs’ legal theories, realigning him with the plaintiffs may be appropriate.).

  4. EVANS, et al v. FENTY, et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re Counter MOTION to Vacate CONSENT ORDERS MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed November 6, 2009

    Outside the Seventh Circuit, a deal is still a deal. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Entz, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) is clearly inapposite as it involved the issuance of an injunction, and not its dissolution. See Dowell, 498 U.S. at 248 (distinguishing Supreme Court case that “did not involve the dissolution of an injunction but whether an injunction should be issued in the first place.”)

  5. Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

    Reply Memorandum re MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN

    Filed November 4, 2009

    Events to date in this litigation illustrate that a misaligned party can, among other things, lead parties to attempt to manipulate the presentation of and weight to be accorded evidence. For 1 See also League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 844 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[I]f the Attorney General changes his views on the merits of the case” to agree with plaintiffs’ legal theories, “realigning him with the plaintiffs may be appropriate.”).

  6. Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

    MOTION TO REALIGN DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL EDMUND G. BROWN

    Filed October 2, 2009

    at 118. See also League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 844 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[I]f the Attorney General changes his views on the merits of the case” to agree with plaintiffs’ legal theories, “realigning him with the plaintiffs may be appropriate.”).

  7. Lopez et al v. Abbott et al

    REPLY in Support of 66 Opposed MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Henry Flores

    Filed December 15, 2017

    Plaintiffs argue this is not the relevant population. LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc), resolved this issue in considering a challenge to Texas’s method of electing district court judges. The Fifth Circuit noted that “[t]he absence of minority office holders is typically an important consideration in dilution cases.”

  8. Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives v. State of Texas et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

    Filed June 28, 2011

    As part of a prima facie case under Section 2, a plaintiff must demonstrate the exist nce of a proper remedy. League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 868-76 (5th Cir. 1993); Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1530-31 (11th Cir. 1994) (plurality opinion). In assessing a plaintiff’s proposed remedy, a court must look to the totality of the circumstances, weighing both the state’s interest in maintaining its election system and the plaintiff’s interest in the adoption of his suggested remedial plan.