School Board of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen
Decision Date | 31 December 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 7303,7310.,7303 |
Citation | 240 F.2d 59 |
Parties | The SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, and Fendall R. Ellis, Division Superintendent of Schools of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, Appellants, v. Doris Marie ALLEN et al., Appellees. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, and T. Edward Rutter, Division Superintendent of Schools, Arlington County, Virginia, Appellants, v. Clarissa S. THOMPSON et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
John S. Battle, Charlottesville, Va. (John S. Battle, Jr., Charlottesville, Va., and Henry T. Wickham, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellants in No. 7303.
Frank L. Ball, Arlington, Va. (James H. Simmonds, Arlington, Va., and Henry T. Wickham, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellants in No. 7310.
J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Virginia, for appellants in both cases.
Oliver W. Hill and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Richmond, Va., for appellees in both cases (Martin A. Martin, Roland D. Ealey, Richmond, Va., and S. W. Tucker, Emporia, Va., on brief for appellees in No. 7303, and Edwin C. Brown, Alexandria, Va., on brief for appellees in No. 7310.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied March 25, 1957. See 77 S.Ct. 667.
These are appeals in actions instituted in behalf of Negro school children to enjoin School Boards and Division Superintendents of Schools from enforcing racial segregation. One action relates to the schools of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the other to the schools of the County of Arlington in that state. Injunctions were granted in both cases and the school authorities have appealed, raising practically the same questions. The questions presented by the appeals are: (1) whether the actions should have been dismissed as suits against the state, (2) whether plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and (3) whether there was abuse of discretion in entering the injunctive orders.
With respect to the Charlottesville case, it appeared on a hearing duly held that request had been made to the school authorities to take action toward abolishing the requirement of segregation in the schools and that no action had been taken. The District Judge in his opinion, after reciting the pertinent evidence, summarized his conclusions as follows:
The order, which by its terms was to become effective at the commencement of the school term beginning in September 1956, and which retained jurisdiction of the cause for such future action as might be necessary, restrained and enjoined the defendants:
"From any and all action that regulates or affects, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or education of the infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro child similarly situated, to and in any public school operated by the defendants."
The Arlington case was heard upon the pleadings and upon documentary evidence submitted to the court on a motion to dismiss. The judge found from the documentary evidence and from the statements of counsel in open court that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case and that "on the admissions of record and the uncontrovertible allegations of the complaint, summary judgment should be granted the plaintiffs". With respect to exhaustion of administrative remedies he made the following finding:
"(d) That, as appeared from the said documentary evidence, the plaintiffs before instituting this suit had exhausted all administrative remedies then and now available to them, including the administrative steps set forth in Section 26-57 22-57 Code of Virginia 1950, in that, they have since July 28, 1955, in effect maintained a continuing request upon the defendants, the County School Board and the Division Superintendent of Schools, for admission of Negro children to the public schools of Arlington County on a non-racial basis, and said request has been denied, or no action taken thereon, the equivalent of a denial thereof".
The decree, which was made effective with respect to elementary schools at the beginning of the second semester of the 1956-1957 session and with respect to high schools at the commencement of the 1957-1958 session, restrained and enjoined the defendants "from refusing on account of race or color to admit to, or enroll or educate in, any school under their operation, control, direction or supervision any child otherwise qualified for admission to, and enrollment and education in, such school."
The foregoing general language of the decree was limited by paragraph 4 thereof, which made clear that the court was not attempting to direct how the school board should handle the problem of assigning pupils but was merely forbidding unconstitutional discrimination on the ground of race or color. That paragraph is as follows:
In his memorandum filed at the time of the entry of the decree, the judge said:
We see nothing in these decrees of which the defendants can complain. The decrees do not attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
... ... Gray Haddon, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond, Virginia; William J. Carleton, Commonwealth's ... for the ensuing year which are binding upon the Board of Directors and upon the branches of the Association. Each ... and proper to admit the parties to the public school on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate ... 431. This refusal was reversed on appeal, Allen v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Va., 4 ... Cir., 249 F.2d 462; School Board of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen (County School Board of Arlington County, Va ... ...
-
Patterson v. Ramsey, Civ. No. Y-75-964.
... ... as Superintendent of Public Instruction of Baltimore City, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and directly ... , challenging that dismissal by the defendants, the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City (Board) and the ... 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954); School Board v. Allen, 240 F.2d 59, 63 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S ... ...
-
Griffin v. Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County
... ... of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Virginia and County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, and T. J. McIlwaine, Division ... 322 F.2d 333 Robert L. Carter, New York City (S. W. Tucker, Henry L. Marsh, III, Richmond, Va., Barbara A. Morris, New ... Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. As Allen et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia et al., ... 239, affirmed School Bd. of City of Charlottesville v. Allen, 4 Cir., 240 F.2d 59; Briggs v. Elliott, E.D.S.C., (Three Judge ... ...
-
Adams v. Walker, 73-1491.
... ... Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 ... In Jeffries v. Turkey Run Consolidated School District, 492 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1974), plaintiff was charged ... , 332 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.); and School Board of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen, 240 F. 2d 59, 62-63 (4th ... ...
-
Applying Lessons from the Evolution of Brown v. Board of Education to Olmstead: Moving from Gradualism to Immediate, Effective, and Comprehensive Integration
...132 F. Supp. 776 (E.D.S.C. 1955). 14. Id. allll. 15. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 301. 16. Sch. Bd. of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen, 240 F.2d 59,62 (4th Cir. 1956); Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 1965); Boson v. Rippy, 285 F.2d 43, 47 (5th Cir. 1......