Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
David C. PARKER, d/b/a Royal Professional Cleaners & Laundry, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORKERS UNION LOCAL 218, et al., Defendants, Josephine B. Crawley, Fred Lee Debardeleben, Loretta Speight, Sophronia Fells and Martha Shelton, Defendants-Appellants, 1975 — 517 F.2d 936 · caselaw · US
General
David C. PARKER, d/b/a Royal Professional Cleaners & Laundry, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORKERS UNION LOCAL 218, et al., Defendants, Josephine B. Crawley, Fred Lee Debardeleben, Loretta Speight, Sophronia Fells and Martha Shelton, Defendants-Appellants
517 F.2d 936·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
David C. PARKER, d/b/a Royal Professional Cleaners & Laundry, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORKERS UNION LOCAL 218, et al., Defendants, Josephine B. Crawley, Fred Lee Debardeleben, Loretta Speight, Sophronia Fells and Martha Shelton, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 74-2626.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 15, 1975.
Caryl P. Privett, U. W. Clemon, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellants.
Robert F. Childs, Jr., C. V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Donald L. Newsom, Birmingham, Ala., Joseph Jacobs, Atlanta, Ga., for Laundry, Etc., Union, Local 218.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
It appearing that all the parties agree that matters giving rise to this appeal are moot on the basis of uncontested affidavits, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the proceeding as being moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; Gooden v. Mississippi State University, 5 Cir., 1974, 499 F.2d 441, 443-44; Reynolds v. Kelley, 5 Cir., 1973, 487 F.2d 1331; Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516-17; Lebus, Regional Director v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 281, 283.
Vacated and remanded with directions.