# Ramey v. Harber > Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 15, 1978 · 589 F.2d 753 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8908397 ## Case - **Full name:** Clarence RAMEY, James Bledsoe, David Curtis Minton, Chester Fugate, Herschel Woodward, Onza Collier, Danny Moore, Ronnie Fortner, James Hensley, Muriel Gibbons, James Hamilton, Marion Hobbs v. Paul T. HARBER, Individually and as Sheriff of Lee County, and Board of Supervisors of Lee County, W. Quentin Littrell, Individually and as member, Roy Lucas, Individually and as member, Ralph Robinette, Individually and as member, C. B. Waddell, Individually and as member, J. K. Newman, Individually and as member, Bill Jessee, Individually and as member, W. R. Hines, Individually and as member, A. T. Burchette, Individually and as member, Defendants Clarence RAMEY, James Bledsoe, David Curtis Minton, Chester Fugate, Herschel Woodward, Onza Collier, Danny Moore, Ronnie Fortner, James Hensley, Muriel Gibbons, James Hamilton, Marion Hobbs v. Paul T. HARBER, Individually and as Sheriff of Lee County, Board of Supervisors of Lee County, W. Quentin Littrell, Individually and as member, Roy Lucas, Individually and as board member, Ralph Robinette, Individually and as member, C. B. Waddell, Individually and as member, J. K. Newman, Individually and as member, Bill Jessee, Individually and as member, W. R. Hines, Individually and as member, A. T. Burchette, Individually and as member, Appellees Clarence RAMEY, James Bledsoe, David Curtis Minton, Chester Fugate, Onza Collier, Danny Moore, James Hensley, Muriel Gibbons, James Hamilton v. COUNTY OF LEE VIRGINIA, Board of Supervisors of Lee County, Virginia, W. Quentin Littrell, Roy Lucas, Ralph Robinette, C. B. Waddell, J. K. Newman, Bill Jessee, Jack Lee, A. T. Burchette, W. R. Hines - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - **Decided:** December 15, 1978 - **Citations:** 589 F.2d 753 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hall - **Judges:** Cowen, Hall - **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8908397 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding Elrod is not retroactive ## Opinion text K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I think that we cannot fairly decide the issue of Elrod’s retroactivity *761 without first determining that the issue is squarely presented by the facts. If this case is not controlled by the rule of Elrod —and I submit that it is not, as the majority itself intimates — then we have no occasion to consider whether Elrod should be accorded retroactive effect. Because I fear that the majority opinion may be read to imply that Elrod would apply prospectively on facts similar to those in this case, I write to express my view that Elrod has no application here. The majority discusses a number of pertinent factual considerations: (1) the deputies took office pursuant to a statute which fixed their terms and were simply not rehired after the terms expired; (2) the deputies actively campaigned against Sheriff Harber (which refutes any inference that they lost their jobs because of passive political beliefs or affiliation); (3) the deputies were not pressured to contribute time or money to Har-ber’s party or to obtain the sponsorship of a member of that party; and (4) the nature and size of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office necessitates mutual confidence and co-operation, which is unlikely to exist where members of the office have actively opposed each other in a bitter election campaign. These facts are completely dissimilar to those in Elrod, and mandate the conclusion that Sheriff Harber was not constitutionally constrained to re-hire the deputies whose terms had expired. I would deny relief on this ground, and save the issue of Elrod’s retroactivity for another day. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8908397. Public record. Not legal advice.