# David Whatley v. City of Vidalia

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 11, 1968 · 399 F.2d 521

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453884

## Case

- **Full name:** David WHATLEY Et Al., Appellants, v. CITY OF VIDALIA, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 11, 1968
- **Citations:** 399 F.2d 521; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6146
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Godbold
- **Judges:** Tuttle, Thornberry, Godbold
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9453884

## Opinion text

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur in the conclusion that these cases must be remanded to the district court for evidentiary hearings. However, I point out that the federally-created *527 rights of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973i(b) give protection against intimidating, threatening or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce, “any person for voting or attempting to vote” and “any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote.” The terms “vote” and “voting” are defined in 42 U.S.C.A. § 19731 (c) (1). The language of the petitions for removal quoted in the opinion of my brother judges is somewhat broader than the federally-protected rights created by § 1973i(b). Of course, the verbiage of the petitions cannot expand the rights that Congress has created, and the district court is bounded by the statutory language in determining whether the appellants’ activities were protected activities. I do not understand that my brother judges propose to broaden the Congressional language.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453884. Public record. Not legal advice.