Court Opinion

ID: 9457224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:16:34.723523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:16.435128
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Agreeing with the District Court that this case is not moot,1 we affirm the dismissal on the ground that the Topaz 1-2-3 Lounge, which does not serve food or offer entertainment, is not within the ambit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,2 and that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was not intended to reach places of public accommodations.3
Affirmed.

. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953) ; Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) ; National Foundation v. City of Fort Worth, 415 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Anderson v. City of Albany, 321 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1963). Compare, Tyson v. Cazes, 363 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1966).

. Fazzio Real Estate Co. v. Adams, 396 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Cuevas v. Sdrales, 344 F.2d 1019 (10th Cir. 1965) ; cert. den., 382 U.S. 1014, 86 S.Ct. 625, 15 L.Ed.2d 528; Robertson v. Johnston, 249 F.Supp. 618 (E.D.La.1966). Cf. Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc. 394 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1968).

. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883) ; see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) at 417.