*1 872 only appeal on this
The issue concerns by the the trial court for fixed
the dates development plans of the as above further
indicated. testimony the have considered We hearing by given the trial held at the against
court, it considered and when is County of
Alexander v. Holmes Board 29, 19, Education, 90 396 S.Ct. U.S. 19, v. and United States 24 L.Ed.2d Education,
Montgomery County Board of 1670, 225, 23 L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct.
395 U.S. action the trial court’s we find
263,
generally to be within its discretion.
However, be time must some additional
provided for final between the'date the beginning form of next and the the following year. principally school This is cases, delays prior
for the reason that in litigation plans
in the of the in this court fragmentation from of
have resulted a by parties.
the issues the In view of the
possible repetition
problem
to
of
and
this
provide
delays,
possible
also
for other
we
Cir.,
See also 5
form before December rather 31, judge than March trial 1971. The may the time fix for of the submission
plan preliminary any in form at time prior 1970, to December which in his 1, opinion orderly will allow for con- its
sideration. Otherwise the order of the hereby
trial court is affirmed. al., Appellants, David BAYLESS et Holman, Levbarg, Mark Z. Brooks v. Austin, Tex., appellants. for Floyd al., Appellees. MARTINE et Martin, Atty. C. of Crawford Gen. No. 28865. Shultz, Texas, McCoy, James C. W. O. United Appeals, States Court of White, Bailey, Atty. Gen., Pat Asst. Nola Fifth Circuit. Walker, Atty. Gen., First Asst. Alfred 12, Dec. 1969. Davis, Atty. Gen., Executive Asst. J. C. Atty. Gen., Austin, appel- Tex., Asst. for
lees. Thomas, Harris, Clark, & Denius Tex., Clark, Austin,
Winters, Edward 873 *2 Furthermore, of Regents, for reasons I dissent State appellee, of Board for judicial policy. I am public and sound Colleges. Senior over, by taking opposed to the courts WISDOM, COLEMAN, and Before orders, emergency administration of the Judges. SIMPSON, Circuit Country, espe- college campuses in this here, cially petitioners where, have as the ORDER hearing evidentiary the before had an de- and there been District Court have any CURIAM: PER relief. nied appellants 1969, 5, the December On ap- hearing on expedited an for moved pending relief appropriate for peal and same the appeal. On the of disposition the of notified were day appellees the re- opportunity to given an and motion
spond. including record, the Upon of review hearing upon the transcript the of the considering injunction, and preliminary will suf- appellants injury the that the al., David et Plaintiffs- BAYLESS suspended from South- they are fer if Appellants, University, or- is it State Texas west v. in- preliminary of denial that the dered Floyd MARTINE, Students, Dean of Western by for the junction the Court University, Southwest Texas State Division, be Texas, Austin of District al., Defendants-Appellees. et be appellees herein stayed that the and No. 28865. appellants suspending the enjoined from University State Texas from Southwest pending Appeals, United States Court of appeal disposition of this the Fifth Circuit. this subject further orders of to and 24, June 1970. Court. Judge. COLEMAN, Circuit entry respectfully from the
I dissent foregoing order.
of the my the views of deference to
With
Colleagues, opinion no that I am of the question First Amendment
substantial by presented this case. Southwest is University no effort made
Texas State expression interfere with the free of
to rather,
opinion; attempted control it to desig- campus the extent of
its own to
nating and in which the time the area
the demonstration to occur. The was flouted this and held the
students effort pleased they demonstration and when they pleased.
where I the believe that University right authorities had the to
specify place time for this demon- and
stration so as to avoid undue interference rights 9,500
with the of other students.