# Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 15, 2000 · 211 F.3d 853

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813105

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry BELK; Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent, Plaintiffs-Appellants; William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor; Michael P. Grant; Richard Easterling; Lawrence Gauvreau; Karen Bentley; Charles Thompson; Scott C. Willard, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. the CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION; Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity; Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, Defendants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae; William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor; Michael P. Grant; Richard Easterling; Lawrence Gauvreau; Karen Bentley; Charles Thompson; Scott C. Willard, Plaintiffs-Appellees; And Terry Belk; Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent, Plaintiffs, v. the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education; Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity; Arthur Griffin, Chair of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellants, United States of America, Amicus Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 15, 2000
- **Citations:** 211 F.3d 853
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Luttig
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9813105

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting “that five prior published opinions in [a precursor case] have all been initially decided by our court en banc”

## Opinion text

ORDER
Plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for an initial hearing en banc. A member of the court requested a poll on whether this case should be heard initially en banc. A majority of the judges in active service voted that it should not be heard initially en banc.
Chief Judge Wilkinson and Judges Widener, Murnaghan, Niemeyer, Michael, Motz, Traxler, and King voted to deny initial en banc hearing. Judges Wilkins, Luttig, and Williams voted to grant initial en banc hearing.
Chief Judge Wilkinson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of an initial hearing en banc. Judge Luttig filed an opinion dissenting from denial of hearing en banc. The petition for initial hearing en banc is hereby denied. Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkinson for the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9813105. Public record. Not legal advice.