This case involved a motion for further relief in a long-running school desegregation lawsuit against the Hillsborough County school board, alleging that the existing plan failed to dismantle the prior dual system of white and black schools as required by federal court precedents. After multiple rejected submissions relying on freedom-of-choice transfers, the board proposed a revised plan using geographically defined attendance zones, faculty racial balancing, limited transfer options, and pairing of certain schools. The court approved the plan in full except for a one-year grandfathering provision for sixth-, ninth-, and twelfth-graders, finding that the zones were fairly drawn to advance integration, faculty assignments eliminated racial disparities in staffing, and any remaining single-race schools resulted from housing patterns rather than board policy. The order directed immediate implementation for the 1969-70 school year while retaining jurisdiction for enforcement.
This case involved a claim by plaintiff Alice Kilpatrick under the Equal Pay Act provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging wage discrimination by her employer because she was paid less than male employee Lyndon Warren for work she claimed required equal skill, effort, and responsibility from June 1964 through July 1965. The court ruled for the defendants and found no violation of the Act. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving the pay difference was based on sex; instead, the evidence established that differences in job responsibilities (Warren's assistant role involved greater independent judgment, accounting knowledge, and cash handling), a de facto seniority system, and Warren's longer employment tenure justified the thirty-cent hourly differential.
The case concerned claims by DeSilva Construction Corp. that defendants infringed its copyright in architectural plans for a model home titled “McCall Colonial Ranch” and engaged in unfair competition by using similar designs. The court dismissed the complaints with prejudice after finding that the plans were published without statutory copyright notice, were freely distributed to subcontractors and the public during construction and open-house events, and that copyright protection for drawings does not extend to the three-dimensional buildings or ideas depicted. The court also dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim for lack of supporting evidence and awarded costs to the defendants.
The case involved Greyhound Corporation seeking to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from conducting a union representation election under the National Labor Relations Act that treated Greyhound as a joint employer alongside Floors, Inc., of Florida, for porters, janitors, and maids at Greyhound's Florida terminals. The court granted a permanent injunction against the election, denied the Board's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and held that the Board's findings did not establish a joint employer relationship. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed Floors, Inc. was an independent contractor that exclusively handled hiring, firing, pay, supervision, and benefits for the workers, making Greyhound's limited involvement insufficient under the Act to qualify it as an employer; the court further determined that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in Section 9 by including non-employees of Greyhound in the proceeding, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Leedom v. Kyne.
This case involved federal mail and wire fraud charges against James R. Hoffa and Robert E. McCarthy, Jr., stemming from an alleged scheme in 1956-1957 to defraud Teamsters-affiliated labor associations and their members through false representations about land sales by Sun Valley, Inc. After an earlier indictment was dismissed due to improper grand jury selection, a new grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added counts and a conspiracy charge. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including legal insufficiency of the charges, violation of the statute of limitations, and the claim that the indictment rested on evidence obtained through illegal wiretapping and mail surveillance. The court denied the motions to dismiss, holding that the new indictment qualified as a valid reindictment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3288 and 3289, that no limitations bar applied, and that the defendants had not shown any illegal evidence was actually used to procure the indictment.
The case involves multiple foreign airline companies from Latin American countries suing the Dade County Port Authority, operator of Miami International Airport, to enjoin enforcement of its prevailing rate schedule for airport use. The plaintiffs claimed the rates violated provisions of the Chicago Convention and various Bilateral Air Transport Service Agreements between the United States and their home countries. The court reviewed the airport's history as a proprietary operation funded solely by its own revenues, the airlines' permits from the Civil Aeronautics Board, and principles of treaty interpretation and supremacy. It reasoned that ratified international agreements and executive agreements have the force of federal law and preempt conflicting state or local actions, while analyzing whether the specific charges complied with those obligations.