Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — appointed by Herbert Hoover
District Court, N.D. Georgia — appointed by Woodrow Wilson
Turman v. Duckworth
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1946-08-26 · cited 14×
The case concerned a challenge by voters from Fulton and DeKalb Counties to Georgia's county unit system for determining the winner of the 1946 Democratic primary for governor, under which a candidate needed a majority of county unit votes rather than a plurality of the popular vote; the plaintiffs argued that the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by diluting the voting power of more populous counties. The three-judge district court denied the requested interlocutory injunction that would have prevented certification of the nominee and placement on the general election ballot. The court reasoned that the county unit rule was not irrational, as it paralleled the structure of the Electoral College and legislative representation, that the dispute presented a political question more appropriately addressed by the state legislature, and that the plaintiffs had also delayed in seeking relief and were bound by the primary rules they had participated under.
electionscivil rights
Cook v. Fortson
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1946-08-26 · cited 11×
The case involved a Democratic voter challenging Georgia's county unit system in the 1946 Fifth Congressional District primary election, alleging that the rule—which awarded unit votes based on county representation in the state legislature rather than popular vote—denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by diluting votes from more populous Fulton County. The plaintiff sought to enjoin certification and placement on the general election ballot of any nominee other than the popular vote majority winner. The three-judge court denied the interlocutory injunction, finding the dispute controlled by Colegrove v. Green and best left to the state legislature or Congress for resolution. It further observed that the county unit rule was not being applied, as the state committee had certified both leading candidates for the ballot, allowing the popular vote to decide the outcome.
electionscivil rights
In Re Philibosian
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1937-08-10
This case concerns a debtor who petitioned for an extension of time to pay debts under Bankruptcy Act § 74, proposing monthly payments to be prorated among creditors, including a secured creditor holding a retention-of-title interest in household furniture. The secured creditor rejected the plan and argued that confirmation would unlawfully impair its right to foreclose, while unsecured creditors accepted it; the referee nevertheless approved the proposal. The court reversed, ruling that § 74 authorizes courts to extend the time and method of liquidating secured debts in the debtor's possession without reducing the lien amount, but only if the extension treats each secured creditor equitably. On the facts found by the referee, the plan was inequitable because the furniture was perishable with no surplus value, would deteriorate through continued use, and the proposed payments were too low to compensate for depreciation or interest, while the debtor had no other assets or income. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the plan could be modified to exclude the secured creditor or whether additional facts would support including it.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power
Georgia Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1936-05-28 · cited 8×
Georgia Power Company sued to enjoin the Tennessee Valley Authority and others from transmitting and selling electricity in northwest Georgia, crossing its power lines, and competing for customers, arguing that TVA lacked congressional or constitutional authority to do so without state consent or regulation. TVA answered that it was selling surplus power from Wilson Dam via temporary interchange arrangements and planned to transfer lines to a local cooperative, denying any unlawful interference. The court found the facts showed TVA acting within its statutory power to dispose of surplus electricity, with no proven trespass or improper conduct by TVA itself, and concluded that the activities did not exceed federal authority. It therefore refused a preliminary injunction but allowed future applications if wrongful conduct occurred.
federal powerbusiness & regulatory
Cole v. Atlanta Terminal Co.
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1936-05-16 · cited 2×
The case involves clerical workers at the Atlanta Joint Terminal Company challenging a Mediation Board certificate under the Railway Labor Act that designated the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks as their exclusive bargaining representative, based on claims of no notice, no hearing, and possible error or fraud in determining majority support. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against use of the certificate, arguing it was invalid and that the Act would be unconstitutional if it allowed certification without due process. The court dismissed the bill without prejudice as premature, ruling that the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred injunctive relief in this labor dispute between employee groups, that the Mediation Board provided the appropriate governmental machinery for resolution, and that plaintiffs had not exhausted those processes. On rehearing, the court rejected arguments that Carter v. Carter Coal Co. rendered the Act unconstitutional, noting the majority plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the majority-rule provisions on contract liberty grounds.
labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Helmer
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1936-05-05 · cited 7×
The case involves an insurance company seeking to resolve disputes over four disability-related insurance policies held by James Harry Helmer, specifically whether the insured is currently disabled under the policies' terms. Two policies involve claims for benefits that the insured plans to sue over at law, while the other two involve questions of premium credits or payments without immediate benefit claims. The court denied the request to enjoin the two impending lawsuits, reasoning that the avoidance of multiple suits was insufficient equity where a jury verdict in one case could estop the other via judgment, preserving the insured's right to a jury trial. However, the court allowed the claim for a declaratory judgment on the two policies without pending suits, as an actual controversy existed regarding the parties' rights and obligations to maintain the policies.
business & regulatoryprocedure