# Petition — Save Our Cemeteries, Inc. v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, Inc.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1220%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1978
- **Citation:** 439 U.S. 836

## Text

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1978

871835

SAVE OUR CEMETERIES, INC.,
PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS,
RESPONDENTS

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

e*eeae
LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS R. KOERNER, JR.
A Professional Law Corporation
Louis R. Koerner, Jr.
730 Camp Street
New Orleans, La. 70130

(504) 581-9569

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1
j OPINION BELOW 3
JURISDICTION 3
QUESTION PRESENTED 4
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 18

I. A conflict exists between the
United States Courts of Appeal
for the District of Columbia,
Second, Third and Ninth Circuit
and the Fifth Circu as to
whether, in complex antitrust
cases, full discovery shall be
allowed prior to a considera-
tion of a Motion for Summary
Judgment. 18

II. A conflict exists between the
United States Supreme “Court and
the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit as
to whether dismissals should be
granted in complex antitrust
cases prior to giving plaintiff
full opportunity for discovery -

III.A conflict exists between the
United States Courts of 4ppeal

-j-

for the Second, Seventh, and
Tenth Circuits and the Fifth
Circuit as to the requisite
discovery to which plaintiffs
in a Civil Rights case are en-
titled before summary judgment
may be granted.

Iv. A conflict exists between the

V.

United States Supreme Court and
the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit as
to the burden of proof which
mist be met by the party moving
for summary judgment before
such motion is granted in Civil
Rights Cases and other types of
cases.

A conflict exists between the
United States Courts of Appeal
for the Sixth and Eighth Cir-
cuits and Fifth Circuit as to
whether amendment of the com
plaint shall be allowed before
summary judgment is granted.

VI. A conflict exists between the

United States Supreme Court and
the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit as
to whether amendments of the
complaint should be allowed
before a summary judgment is
granted.

VII.The decision of the Court below

is contrary to the long-estab-
lished policy and jwrisprudence
that dismissal and summary
judgment cannot be justified by
a mere six week delay.

af be

28

30

37

39

40

CONCLUSION 45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 46
AP PENDIX 47

(Judgment and Qpinion of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals)

-iii-

Se

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
" " . . 1598

(1970) 30, 33

Anderson v. American Automobile Association
454 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 197 2) 22

Baldwin v. Morgan
251 F.2d 70 (Sth Cir. 1958) 32

Beeck v. Aquas lide N° Dive Corp.
562 F.2d 537 (8th Cir. 197 39

Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass
176 F. Supp. 374 (E. D. Pa. 1959) 43

Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.
561 F.2d 434 (34 Cir. 1978) 20

Bresler & Reiner, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
73 F.R.D. 684 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 21

Cameron v. Brooks
473 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1973) 36

Canadian American Oil Company v. Union Oil

Corp. of California
1978-1 Trade Cases 61,910,
F.2d (9th Cir. 1978) 22

Costlow v. United States
° r r. 1977) 21

Durham v. Flordia East Coast Railway Co.
. t ir. ) 43

otherm Corp. v. Turbo Machine Co.
392 F.2d bie (3rd. cir. 1968) 42

Egelston v. State University College at
Geneseo

-iv-

if ee ee ee

:

535 F.2d 752 (2d Cir. 1976) 30

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227,
9 L.Ed 2d 222 (1962) 40

Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc v.
Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp.
554 F.20 551 (20 Cir. 1977) 19

Gayda v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
415 F.2a 304 (3rd Cir. 136) 43

Gill v. Stowlow
240 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1957) 43

— Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East
545 oa 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976) 22

Griffin v. Breckenridge
~ 403 U.S. 88, 91 S. Ct. 1790,

29 L.Ed. 2d 338 (1971) 35, 36

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 248,

13 L.Ed. 2d 258 (1968) 23
Hickman v. Taylor

329 U.S. i355, 67 S. Ct. 395

(1974) 27

Honesee v. Grier
- Supp. 1358 (M. D. Pa. 1974) 33

Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees
of Rex Hospital
425 U.S. 738 (1976) 25

Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis
473 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1972) 29

Investment Properties International, Ltd. v.

A=

IOS LTD

459 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1972)

Jones v. Alfred H. Meyer Co.

24

392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186 (1968) 37

Lavin v. Illinois High School Association

527 F.2d 58 (7th Cir. 1975)

29

Lima y. Bank of America National Trust &

Savings Ass'n.
545 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1977)

22
Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation
405 U.S. 538, 92S. Ct. 1113,
31 L.Ed. 2d 424 (1972) 33
Mazaleski v. Treusdell
. eC. Cir. 1977) 22
McDowall v. Orr Felt & Blanket Co.
1460 F. t. 38
McIndoo v. Burnett
494 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1974) 39
Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co.
. t r. ) 22
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan
Hockey Club
__ U.S. _, 96 S. Ct. 2778 (1976) 44
Norfolk Monument Co., Inc. v. Woodlawn
Memorial Gardens, Inc.
394 U.S. 700 (1969) 26, 26

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union v.

Delta Refining Co.

277 F.2d F54 (6th Cir. 1960)
Phillips v. Trello

505 F.2d 1000 (3rd Cir. 1974)

~vi-

38

34

_ Pond v. Braniff Alrwayee Inc.
453 F. (5th Cir. 1972) 43

Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.

522 F.20 333 (10th Cir. 1975) 29
Richman v. General Motors Corp.
437 F.2d 196 (ist Cir. 1971) 43

Schlangenhauf v. Holder
379 U.S. 104, 85 S. Ct. 234 (1964) 27

Societe International Pour Participation

Industrielles, et. Commercials v. Rogers

357 U.S. 197, 785. Ct. 1087,
2 L.Ed. 2d 1955 (1958) 44

Tankersley v. Albright
514 F.2d 905 (/th Cir. 1972) 29

Umdenstock v. American Mortgage and
Investment Co. of Oklahoma City

495 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1974) 28
United States v. Inter-American Shipping Corp.
455 F. 2d 938 (5th Cir. 1972) 42
Village Harbor, Inc. v. United States

559 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1977) 41, 42
Ward v. United States

471 F.20 607 (3rd Cir. 1973) 21
Weisman v. LeLandais

532 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1976) 29
Willburn v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.

492 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1974) 39

STATUTES

15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 19

~ii-

:
:
;

15 U.S.C. Sec. 15 4,9
15 U.S.C. Sec. 26 5, 9
16 U.S.C. Sec. 461 5

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(1) 4

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 9

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1337 9

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 9

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 4

28 U.S.C. Rule 1 3

28 U.S.C. Rule 12 41, 43, 44
28 U.S.C. Rule 15(a) 40

28 U.S.C. Rule 37 41, 44
28 U.S.C. Rule 41 41, 42, 44
28 U.S.C. Rule 56(f) 20

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 6, 37
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982 6, 36, 37
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 36, 31, 33, 34
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) 7, 34, 35, 36, 37
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 9

42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(b) 8
Chapter 13, Ordinances of the City of

New Orleans, Art. 1, Section 13-10 10

~iii-

a ee

OTHER AUTHORITIES

3 Moore's Federal Practice (1974)
15.08[2] 38

4 Moore's Federal Practice
Sec. 26.25[6] (1974) 18

6 Moore's Federal Practice Part 1 (1974)
Sections 56.11[3] & 56.11[4] 45

6 Moore's Federal Practice Part 2 (1974)
Sections 56.15[3] & 56.15[4] 45

i.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ee
¥
: Ss
lL}
3

be granted if “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and [if] the mov-
ing party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.RCiv.P. 56(c). Mo-

tually exists for the petitioner’s claims.
Tuley v. Heyd, 482 F.2d 590, 593 (5th
} Cir. 1978); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2712,
at 373 (1973). Because the appellees
supported their motion for summary
judgment with a sufficient affidavit, the
ts had the burden to “set forth
specific facts showing that there is a

_ —_—--

A finding of state action is a
prerequisite to a grant of

&
8
i
53

(9, 10]

|

A finding of a class-based in-
discriminatory animus is a nec-

SAVE OUR CEMETERIES v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS 2396

complying with the City’s notice to pro-
ibit future burials in the wall vaults.

the appellants made no showing of cause
for their failure to begin discovery and
because the appellants had sufficient
time to do so before the hearing, we
reject this argument. Village Harbor,
Inc. v. United States, 559 F.2d 247, 249-
50 (1977).

Although we hold that the avpellants’
antitrust claims appropriately were dis-
missed for lack of subject matter juris-
diction and that their civil rights claims
are appropriate for summary judgment,
we express no opinion as to any state
causes of action. -

AFFIRMED.

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—West Publishing Company, Saint Paul, Minn.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1220%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.