Case Name: Rev. Roy JONES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rose Wilson, individually and as representative of the Black and Mexican-American Voters of Lubbock, Texas, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LUBBOCK, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-08-13
Citations: 682 F.2d 504
Docket Number: No. 79-2744
Parties: Rev. Roy JONES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rose Wilson, individually and as representative of the Black and Mexican-American Voters of Lubbock, Texas, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LUBBOCK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 682
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
Rev. Roy JONES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rose Wilson, individually and as representative of the Black and Mexican-American Voters of Lubbock, Texas, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. The CITY OF LUBBOCK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 79-2744.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Unit A
Aug. 13, 1982.
William L. Garrett, Dallas, Tex., Daniel H. Benson, Lubbock, Tex., Robert P. Davi-dow, George Mason Univ., Arlington, Va., Albert Perez, Mark C. Hall, Lane Arthur, Lubbock, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
James P. Brewster, Trial Atty., Dennis W. McGill, Travis D. Shelton, Lubbock, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
ON REHEARING
Before GOLDBERG, POLITZ and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On appeal, 640 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1981), we reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980). Shortly thereafter the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Rogers v. Lodge and we recalled and have withheld our mandate. That case has now been decided, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 72 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982). Consistent therewith, sua sponte, we grant rehearing and supplement our opinion to instruct the district court, in its re-examination, to give appropriate consideration to the teachings contained in Rogers v. Lodge.
REVERSED and REMANDED.