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.
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.
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.).
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.”)
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.”).
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.”).
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.”
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.