Calhoun v. Cook, 71-2622.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2622.,71-2622. |
| Citation | 451 F.2d 583 |
| Parties | Vivian CALHOUN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ed S. COOK et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Norman J. Chachkin, Jack Greenberg, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
A. C. Latimer, William F. Lee, Jr., Latimer, Haddon & Stanfield, Lenwood A. Jackson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Before WISDOM, THORNBERRY and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The district court is ordered to afford plaintiffs-appellants a reasonable opportunity to present and support an alternate and superior plan for the desegregation of the Atlanta school system, which plaintiffs indicated could be and was being developed. If such a plan is developed and presented, the court shall supplement the record now before this court with findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the viability and efficacy of all or any part of such plan, alone or in connection with the plan presently being implemented within this school system. The issue of taxation of costs and fees attributable to the development and presentation of such a plan is a matter initially committed to the sound discretion of the district court, which shall be carried with the case pending the ultimate resolution thereof.
The district court shall additionally consider and make supplementary findings of fact and conclusions of law on the wide range reevaluation of the Atlanta school system described in the paragraph of its opinion of July 28, 1971 entitled "Comment". See 804 F.Supp. 332. However, the court shall not delay supplementing the record, as directed next above, pending the completion of such wide range evaluation and the making of findings and conclusions thereon.
That portion of the opinion of the district court stating that this action shall stand dismissed on January 1, 1972, is vacated. During the next three school years the school district shall be required by the court below to file with the district court the presently required semi-annual reports, similar to those required in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 433 F.2d 611, 618-619 (5th Cir. 1970). At the conclusion of three school years the district court should again consider whether the cause should be dismissed. In no event, however, shall the district court dismiss the action without notice to the plaintiffs below and a hearing providing opportunity to plaintiffs-appellants to show cause why...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia
...conclusions of law on the proposal to consolidate the city and county systems outlined in the lower court's "comment." Calhoun v. Cook, 451 F.2d 583 (5th Cir., 1971). In Bradley v. Milliken, supra, the district court determined that state-imposed segregation existed in the Detroit schools. ......
-
Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George's County
...of the student population. The District Court's decision in the Atlanta case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which in Calhoun v. Cook, 451 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1971), vacated that portion of the District Court's opinion dismissing the action as of January 1, 1972, and remanded the case to ......
-
U.S. v. Texas Ed. Agency
...United States v. Texas et al (San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated Independent School District), 509 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1975); Calhoun v. Cook, 451 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1971). In denying the requested relief the district court relied on the rationale of the Swann opinion which Neither school autho......
-
Ross v. Houston Independent School Dist., s. 77-1069
...our precedents require. See United States v. Texas (San Felipe Del Rio Consolidated ISD),509 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1975); Calhoun v. Cook, 451 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1971). Judged on its face and in context, the proper interpretation of the injunctive decree is that it prohibited the formation of ......
-
Race as identity caricature: a local legal history lesson in the salience of intraracial conflict.
...of the social realities of those protected by the Equal Protection Clause than conventional antidiscrimination norms and doctrine). (35) 451 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1971) (per (36) See infra Part II.B (describing the settlement negotiations). (37) The allusion to "double consciousness" is a play......