Aaron v. Tucker, Civ. A. No. 3113.
Decision Date | 02 September 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3113. |
Citation | 186 F. Supp. 913 |
Parties | John AARON et al., Plaintiffs, v. Everett TUCKER, Jr., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Thurgood Marshall, James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, and Wiley A. Branton, Pine Bluff, Ark., for plaintiffs.
Mehaffy, Smith & Williams (by Herschel H. Friday, Jr., and Robert V. Light), and Howard Cockrill, Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.
This is another of the many controversies that have stemmed from the judgment of this court approving a plan for desegregation of the Little Rock, Arkansas, public schools on August 27, 1956. Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., D.C. E.D.Ark., 143 F.Supp. 855.1
On August 8, 1959, the plaintiffs, for themselves and all other members of the class whom they claim to represent, filed their motion for further relief in which it was alleged that Thelma Mothershed and Melba Pattillo are two of the nine Negro students who were admitted to and attended Central High School in Little Rock during the 1957-58 school term; that in July 1959 they registered at Central High School with other students who lived in the Central High School attendance zone; that on or about August 3, 1959, they were notified that they would not be admitted to Central High School during the 1959-60 school term, and that they would be assigned to attend the Horace Mann High School, which is a racially segregated school maintained by defendants for Negro pupils.
On August 21, 1959, the defendants filed a response to the motion of plaintiffs for further relief, in which they alleged:
On the same date, August 21, 1959, the defendants filed an amendment to the response, in which they alleged:
On September 19, 1959, fourteen Negro students filed their motion to be allowed to intervene, which motion was granted September 23, 1959. In the intervention, it was alleged:
This cause proceeded to trial to the court on March 22-23, 1960. The response of the defendants to the original motion for further review was treated as a response to the intervention heretofore set forth.3
In the consideration of the contentions of the parties certain undisputed background facts should be borne in mind.
The Board of Directors in charge of the schools on August 27, 1956, when the plan for operating the schools on a nondiscriminatory basis was approved, Aaron et al. v. Cooper et al., D.C., 143 F.Supp. 855, resigned, and in December 1958 the present members, Messrs. Tucker, Matson, and Lamb, were elected along with Messrs. Ed. I. McKinley, Jr., Ben D. Rowland and R. W. Laster. At that time the high schools were closed and had been since September 12, 1958, by proclamation of the Governor issued under Act 4 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly of Arkansas. There was also an entirely new administrative staff and an entirely new group of attorneys representing the School District. Mr. Terrell E. Powell had replaced Mr. Virgil Blossom as Superintendent, and Mr. Paul Fair had become the new Assistant Superintendent. The new Board elected in December 1958 qualified, and the first event in sequence of time was a hearing before this court on January 6, 1959, 169 F.Supp. 325, for the purpose of determining and fixing the provisions and terms of the decree of the court in accordance with the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, issued December 2, 1958, and filed herein December 4, 1958, 261 F.2d 97. The new Board was confronted with the duty of familiarizing itself with all the proceedings that had occurred prior to its election. On January 9, after the hearing on January 6, the court entered the order hereinbefore referred to, giving the defendants 30 days in which to file its report. The report was filed, but at that time the high schools were still closed by the action taken by the Governor of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School Dist.
...173 F.Supp. 944 (E. D.Ark.1959), aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197, 80 S.Ct. 291, 4 L. Ed.2d 237 (1959); Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F.Supp. 913 (E.D.Ark.1960), rev'd Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961); Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 2 No......
-
Norwood v. Tucker
...action. For history and discussion of the tenure of various members of the Board, see opinion of the trial court, Aaron v. Tucker, D.C., 186 F.Supp. 913, at page 920. The appellees will hereinafter be referred to collectively as "defendants," or "the On August 8, 1959, plaintiffs filed a "m......