Case Name: Nathaniel JAMES et al., Appellees, v. The BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-08-28
Citations: 465 F.2d 477
Docket Number: No. 72-1065
Parties: Nathaniel JAMES et al., Appellees, v. The BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 465
Pages: 477–480

Head Matter:
Nathaniel JAMES et al., Appellees, v. The BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate, Appellant.
No. 72-1065.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 8, 1972.
Decided Aug. 28, 1972.
Lee E. Knott, Jr., Washington, N. C. (McMullan, Knott & Carter, Washington, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Adam Stein, Charlotte, N. C. (Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning and J. LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C., Conrad O. Pearson, Durham, N. C., Jack Greenberg, and Norman Chachkin, New York City, on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, and BLATT, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Except for the issue of counsel fees, which is reserved for resolution in the en banc hearing ordered in James v. Beaufort County Board of Education, No. 72-1065, Copeland v. School Board of Portsmouth, Virginia, Nos. 71-1993 and 71-1994, Thompson v. School Board of Newport News, Virginia, Nos. 71-2032 and 71-2033, and Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, Virginia, No. 71-1774, the orders of the District Court herein are affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion. It is axiomatic that an ex parte order, entered without notice or hearing, and apparently viewed by the issuing Court itself more as a mere administrative entry rather than as a formal judicial order, will not support a plea of res judicata or authorize an es-toppel — and this is particularly true in a school integration case.
Affirmed.