# Jeffers v. Clinton

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · February 23, 1993 · 812 F. Supp. 907

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679058

## Case

- **Full name:** M.C. JEFFERS, Al Porter, Evangeline Brown, Clyde Collins, Earl Foster, the Rev. Ellihue Gaylord, Shirley M. Harvell, Linda Shelby, J.C. Jeffries, Joseph Perry, Clinton Richardson, T.E. Patterson, Earnest Simpson, Brian Smith, and Charlie Statewright, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bill CLINTON, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Arkansas and Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; W.J. McCuen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Arkansas and Member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; And Winston Bryant, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas and Member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment, Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 23, 1993
- **Citations:** 812 F. Supp. 907; 1993 WL 49904
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eisele
- **Judges:** Arnold, Eisele, Howard
- **Cited by:** 1 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/9679058

## Opinion text

EISELE, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
While I do not believe that this Court has jurisdiction of this matter and further believe that these plaintiffs should be es-topped from asserting, as the principal basis of their present claims, a theory of black majorities that is contrary to that asserted by them in their 1989 attack on the 1981 redistricting, I nevertheless concur with my brothers on the narrow issue reserved by the majority of this Court in its March 20, 1992, order. That issue is whether the challenges made by the plaintiffs represented by Mr. Simes to the 1991 Plan for districts in Eastern Arkansas are barred by a settlement agreement. The defendants contend that the 1991 Plan is the result of a settlement agreement between the parties which would bind all of the named plaintiffs to that Plan. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue should be denied.
I continue to reserve my right to state at a later time my views on these and related issues.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679058. Public record. Not legal advice.