Jerry P. Shinley Archive:
Dean Andrews and the McCain Case



Subject: Dean Andrews and the McCain Case
Date: 3/11/00 11:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <8adr66$efm$>

       The following is primarily of interest to me because it show Dean Andrews again practicing in federal court and representing the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish Jack Fitzgerald. It also shows that Andrews mixed it up in court with some interesting attorneys: Ben Smith of the SCEF; Robert Collins and Nils R. Douglas, who would later represent CORE in Clinton; future Mayor Ernest N. Morial; NAACP lawyer A. P. Tureaud; and future crminal court judge Frank Shea, who was representing Jim Garrison.

James T. McCAIN, Plaintiff, v. James H. DAVIS et al., Defendants. Daisy BATES, Plaintiff, v. SHERATON CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Corporation, et al., Defendants

Civ. A. Nos. 12937, 12940


217 F. Supp. 661; 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7610

May 15, 1963

COUNSEL: [**1]

Benjamin E. Smith, Robert Collins, Nils R. Douglas, Alvin B. Jones, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff, James T. McCain.

A. P. Tureaud, Ernest N. Morial, A. M. Trudeau, Jr., New Orleans, La., Leroy D. Clark, New York City, for plaintiff, Daisy Bates.

L. K. Clement, Jr., Henry J. Roberts, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for state of Louisiana.

Waverly A. Henning, Gretna, La., for Frank H. Langridge in Civ. A. 12940.

Harry McCall, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Hilton Inns, Inc. and Sheraton Corp. of America.

Ernest L. Salatich, Beuker Amann, New Orleans, La., for Jos. Giarrusso, Victor H. Schiro, James H. Fitzmorris, and others.

Dean A. Andrews, New Orleans, La., for John J. Fitzgerald, Sheriff of Jefferson Parish in Civ. A. 12940.

Robert E. LeCorgne, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Royal Orleans, Inc.

Frank J. Shea, Philip J. Foto, New Orleans, La., for Jim Garrison.

JUDGES: Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENBERRY and WEST, District judges.


OPINION: [*663]

These two cases raise an important Fourteenth Amendment question: the applicability of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses to a state law forbidding 'white' hotels to provide accommodations for Negroes. [**2] It was in the cards that sooner or later the question would someday be put to the Court. It was in the cards too that the Court would give the answer we give here.

The Negro plaintiffs in these two class actions allege that certain New Orleans hotels, acting under the compulsion of a Louisiana criminal statute, LSA-R.S. 14:317, refused them accommodations because they were Negroes. The defendant hotel companies admit this. They say that the statute gave them no alternative.

Each complaint joins as co-defendants certain public officials responsible for law enforcement. These officials neither affirm nor deny the plaintiffs' allegations of fact. The State of Louisiana, through the Attorney General, and the Sheriff and the District Attorney of Jefferson Parish construe the law as inapplicable to hotels. The City of New Orleans, the Superintendent of Police, and the District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans argue that the statute applies to hotels and contend that it is constitutional.

The plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment declaring LSA-R.S. 14:317 unconstitutional and for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from acting under LSA-R.S. 14:317 [**3] to deny accommodations to Negroes at hotels. On the application of plaintiff McCain, a three-judge court was invoked and convened under 28 U.S.C. 2281 and 2284. Plaintiff Bates opposes such a court on the ground that there is no substantial question as to the unconstitutionality of the statute. Because of common questions of law arising from substantially similar fact-patterns, the cases were consolidated. All of the parties stipulated to submit the case on the admissions in the pleadings. May 3, 1962, in open court, with all of the parties present through counsel, the three-judge court heard oral argument on the legal issues.

The Court dismisses the members of the Commission Council of the City of New Orleans as parties defendant, individually and as Councilmen, because individually and collectively they are unable to give the relief sought. The Court holds that LSA-R.S. 14:317 is unconstitutional and, except as to the members of the Commission Council, grants the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.


Jerry Shinley

Sent via
Before you buy.



Back to the top

Back to Jerry Shinley Archive menu

Back to Jim Garrison menu


Search this site
    powered by FreeFind

Back to JFK menu

Dave Reitzes home page


Dave Reitzes home page