You are here: Home > Johnson v Riley




Table of Contents:

  • Johnson v. Riley -- Plaintiffs' reply on motion for clarification and reconsideration
  • Johnson v. Riley -- Defendants' response to motion for clarification
  • Johnson v. Riley -- Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and reconsideration
  • Johnson v. Riley -- order setting briefing and argument on motion to dismiss
  • Johnson v. Riley -- motion to dismiss and our response
  • Johnson v. Riley -- amended motion for prelimary injunction
  • Johnson v. Riley -- appointment of the 3-judge court
  • Johnson v. Riley -- denial of TRO
  • Johnson v. Riley -- motion for TRO
  • Johnson v. Riley -- motion for prelimary injunction
  • Johnson v. Riley -- Section 5 suit filed (complaint attached)
  • Johnson v. Riley -- Plaintiffs' reply on motion for clarification and reconsideration

    18 Reply on Mot-clarify

    This entry was posted by Edward at 9:56 AM, 16 September 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- Defendants' response to motion for clarification

    17 Resp to Mot-reconsider

    This entry was posted by Edward at 9:55 AM, 16 September 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and reconsideration

    16 Mot Reconsider

    This entry was posted by Edward at 9:52 AM, 16 September 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- order setting briefing and argument on motion to dismiss

    15 Order Re Mot-dismiss Brief and Arg

    This entry was posted by Edward at 9:45 AM, 16 September 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- appointment of the 3-judge court

    9 Appt of 3-Judge Court

    This entry was posted by Edward at 1:29 PM, 11 August 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- denial of TRO

    7 Denial of TRO

    This entry was posted by Edward at 2:38 PM, 06 August 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- motion for prelimary injunction

    We have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and brief in Johnson v. Riley. The complaint is found here.

    3 Mot-prelim Injunction

    4 Brief on Prelim Inj

    4-1 Exh A

    4-2 Exh B

    This entry was posted by Edward at 2:17 PM, 02 August 2010 | TrackBack (0)

    Johnson v. Riley -- Section 5 suit filed (complaint attached)

    The Tuscaloosa News reports on a new voting rights suit filed by James U. Blacksher, Fred D. Gray, and Edward Still: Local politicians in Greene and Macon counties have joined to file a federal lawsuit claiming that Gov. Bob Riley's bingo raids are perpetuating racial injustice by thwarting the intent of black voters.

    The suit, filed Thursday, was intended to reopen Greenetrack and avoid a raid at Victory-Land in Macon County. The raid appears imminent after the state Supreme Court on Friday gave the governor's anti-gambling task force a green light.

    Voting rights lawyer Ed Still is one of several attorneys who filed the lawsuit over the June raid and confiscation of more than 800 bingo machines from the Greenetrack bingo casino in Greene County.

    Still said on Friday that Riley never got clearance from the U.S. Justice Department to take action against Greene and Macon counties, which have local constitutional amendments approved by voters authorizing bingo.

    The lawsuit's premise is simple: Riley's actions reversed voter intentions in both counties, effectively canceling their votes. Read the whole story --> Suit claims bingo raids thwart black voters | TuscaloosaNews.com

    Johnson v. Riley (Voting Rights Act Complaint)

    This entry was posted by Edward at 5:30 PM, 01 August 2010 | TrackBack (0)


    The picture above was made in 1914 by the Birmingham Engraving Co. This reproduction is from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

    Information about ...


    Contact me
    Edward Still Law Firm, LLC
    130 Wildwood Parkway
    Suite 108 PMB 304
    Birmingham AL 35209
    tel & fax: 205-320-2882


    View Edward Still's profile on LinkedIn

    Legal Notices

    The Alabama Rules of Professional Responsibility require this statement: "No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

    Search


    Recently Changed Information on this Page
    Join the People Over Profits Grassroots Network.

    Entire site copyright (c) 2005-12 Edward Still. See the Creative Commons license below.

    Creative Commons License
    This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
    Powered by
    Movable Type 3.35

    Hosted by Hosting Matters

    join our mailing list
    * indicates required



    Newsfeeds


    Click below to move to a news feed:
    Workplace Fairness
    Legal News from Jurist
    Constitution Newswire