• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/937.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    HILL v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF GULF COAST, 422 U.S. 937 (1975)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    HILL v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF GULF COAST, 422 U.S. 937 (1975)

    422 U.S. 937

    HILL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, ET AL. v. PRINTING INDUSTRIES
    OF THE GULF COAST ET AL.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
    No. 74-456.

    Argued April 15, 1975.
    Decided June 30, 1975.

    In light of recent amendments to the Texas Election Code provision whose constitutionality is at issue, the District Court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for reconsideration and for dismissal if the case is or becomes moot.

    382 F. Supp. 801, vacated and remanded.

    John W. Odam, Executive Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were John L. Hill, Attorney General, pro se, David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General, and Elizabeth B. Levatino, First Special Assistant Attorney General.

    Gerald M. Birnberg argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were James T. Evans and Michael Anthony Maness. *  

    [ Footnote * ] David Crump filed a brief for Common Cause as amicus curiae urging reversal.

    PER CURIAM.

    The parties to this case have informed us that the State of Texas has enacted the Political Funds Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1975, which will become effective on September 1, 1975.Fn Section 11 of that Act substantially amends Art. 14.10 (b) (Supp. 1974-1975) of the Texas Election Code, the constitutionality of which is at issue in this appeal. Although the parties take the position that these amendments do not affect this case, [422 U.S. 937, 938]   we prefer to remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the recent amendments, rather "than render an unnecessary judgment on the validity of the constitutional views expressed by the District Court." White v. Regester, ante, p. 935.

    The judgment of the District Court is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of the new legislation and for dismissal if the case is or becomes moot.

      So ordered.

    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

    Fn [422 U.S. 937, 937]   Tex. Const., Art. 3, 39.

    [422 U.S. 937, 1]  

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw