Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Civ. A. No. T-316.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. T-316. |
| Citation | 139 F. Supp. 468 |
| Parties | Oliver BROWN et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, Shawnee County, KANSAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
John Scott, Charles Scott, Topeka, Kan., Robert L. Carter, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Charles E. Bledsoe, Topeka, Kan., and Thurgood Marshall, New York City, for plaintiffs.
George Brewster, Lester Goodell, James Porter, Topeka, Kan., and Harold R. Fatzer, Atty. Gen., Willis H. McQueary and Chas. H. Hobart, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants.
Before HUXMAN, Circuit Judge, MELLOTT, Chief Judge, and HILL, District Judge.
On August 2, 1955, the plaintiffs in the above entitled cause filed a motion for a hearing on the formulation of a decree and judgment in this cause. The matter was set down for hearing on August 24, 1955, at Topeka, Kansas. At that time, the parties appeared in person and by their attorneys. A hearing was held, the subject of which was whether the Board of Education had fully complied with the order of the Supreme Court in this cause dated May 31, 1955. 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083.
A full hearing was accorded the parties. Evidence was received and arguments were heard by the respective attorneys. The Board of Education submitted the plan put in force for the current school year to bring about desegregation. No useful purpose would be accomplished by setting out the plan in detail. The Superintendent of the Public School System of Topeka, with commendable candor, gave it as his opinion that the plan adopted for the current school year did not fully accomplish desegregation. The central principle of the plan is that hereafter, except in exceptional circumstances, school children irrespective of race or color shall be required to attend the school in the district in which they reside and that color or race is no element of exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from this basic principle.
There are a number of respects in which we feel that the plan does not constitute full compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, but that mandate implies that some time will be required to bring that about. The elements that we feel do not constitute full compliance are mostly of a minor nature but since this is not a final decree no useful purpose would be served by setting them out herein.
The most serious objection to the present plan relates to the rule adopted, permitting children reaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York
...statements stem from and are made in reliance upon what the lower court said upon the remand of Brown v. Board of Education in 139 F.Supp. 468, 470 (D.Kan.1955). There, the central principle of the plan submitted to the court by the school board required children to attend school in the dis......
-
Chandler v. James
...jurisdiction to see if implementation of the plan succeeded in fulfilling the court's mandate. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 139 F.Supp. 468, 470 (D.Kan.1955). When various obstacles prevented fulfillment of the mandate—for instance, outside interference or obstinacy b......
-
Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan.
...Timing is central to an assessment of the Topeka school district's actions. After what was described as a "good faith" beginning, Brown, 139 F.Supp. at 470, the course the school district followed in the late 1950s and early 1960s may fairly be characterized as segregative. The decade from ......
-
Downs v. Board of Education of Kansas City, 7536.
...150 (E.D.N.Y.1962); Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, 59 Cal.2d 876, 31 Cal.Rptr. 606, 382 P.2d 878. 4 In Brown v. Board of Education, 139 F.Supp. 468, 470 (D.Kan.1955) the three-judge court, after remand from the Supreme Court, "* * * Desegregation does not mean that there must be ......
-
Brown v. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis - James L. Hunt
...court, which issued an order approving a desegregation plan submitted by the Topeka school board. Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 139 F. Supp. 468, 469 (D. Kan. 1955). The case remained inactive until 1979, when Linda Brown intervened in the still pending proceeding and argued desegregat......