Document: 358 U.S. 202 79 S.Ct. 178 3 L.Ed.2d 222 O. Z. EVERS et al., Appellants,v.John T. DWYER al. No. 382. Decided Dec. 15, 1958. Messrs. Robert L. Carter, New York, H. Lockhard, Memphis, Tenn., for appellants. Frank B. Gianotti, Jr., City Atty., Walter Chandler, Allison Humphreys, Nashville, Edward P. Russell, Charles M. Crump, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant, a Negro resident of Tennessee, brought this class action in the Western Division United States District Court seeking declaration as to his claimed constitutional right, and that others similarly situated, travel on buses within without being subjected, required by Tenn. Code Ann., 1955, §§ 65—1704 through 65—1709, segregated seating arrangements account race. An injunction against enforcement statute or any other method state-enforced segregation Memphis transportation facilities was also sought. Various officials officers Street Railway Company, one Company's employees were named defendants. After hearing three-judge Court, reaching merits, dismissed complaint ground no 'actual controversy' intendment Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, U.S.C.A. had been shown, appellant ridden bus only occasion 'boarded purpose instituting litigation,' thus not 'representative colored citizens who do use means transportation.' 2 Of course, federal courts will grant declaratory relief instances where record does disclose an controversy.' Public Service Commission Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 237, 73 236, 97 L.Ed. 291. In Maryland Casualty Co. Pacific Coal & Oil 312 270, 273, 61 510, 512, 85 826, said: 'The difference between abstract question 'controversy' contemplated Act is necessarily degree, it would be difficult, if possible, fashion precise test determining every case whether there such controversy. Basically, each facts alleged, under all circumstances, show substantial controversy, parties having adverse legal interests, sufficient immediacy reality warrant issuance judgment.' present we think establishes existence actual controversy which should have adjudicated lower court. The found when boarded April 26, 1956, seated himself at front vehicle, driver told him he must move rear, 'stating law because (his) color'; following appellant's refusal comply, two police shortly thereafter 'ordered (appellant) go back bus, get off, arrested'; thereupon left bus. further shows appellees intend enforce state until its unconstitutionality has finally adjudicated. We believe appellant, order demonstrate over validity here challenged, bound continue ride risk arrest refused seat space vehicles assigned passengers. A municipality cannot therein subjected special disabilities has, think, substantial, immediate, real interest imposes disability. See Gayle Browder, 352 903, 77 145, 114, affirming decision reported 142 F.Supp. 707. That may particular litigation significant. Young Higbee 324 204, 214, 65 594, 599, 89 890; Doremus Board Education, 342 429, 434—435, 72 394, 397—398, 96 475. 4 hold court below erred proceeding merits. Accordingly, judgment reversed remanded proceedings consistent with opinion. 5 It so ordered. 6 Reversed remanded.

Category: 1