Cleveland Board of Education v. Reed, Iii, 79-804
Decision Date | 17 March 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 79-804,79-804 |
Citation | 63 L.Ed.2d 770,100 S.Ct. 1329,445 U.S. 935 |
Parties | CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. Robert Anthony REED, III, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioners seek to present two questions for decision: (a) whether the District Court properly found systemwide segregative intent on the part of petitioner school Board, and, (b) "[w]hether the systemwide student reassignment plan ordered by the District Court, whereby every grade in every school must have a ratio of black and white students in approximate proportion to the systemwide ratio, exceeded the violation found, particularly where the evidence showed that Cleveland's residential areas are highly segregated by race." Pet. for Cert. 3. With respect to the first issue of systemwide desegregation, the District Court found as follows in its exhaustive opinion:
Reed v. Rhodes, 455 F.Supp. 546, 555 (N.D.Ohio 1978).
The Court of Appeals affirmed this conclusion of the District Court in this language:
Reed v. Rhodes, 607 F.2d 714, 717 (C.A.6 1979).
The Court of Appeals, I think, was undoubtedly correct in upholding this District Court's finding of systemwide segregative intent on the basis of this Court's decisions last Term in the Columbus and Dayton cases. I would therefore not vote to grant the petition on this first issue.
The Court of Appeals, however, devoted virtually no attention to the second issue—the propriety of the remedy imposed by the District Court. In the Court of Appeals' opinion, which comprises 46 pages of the appendix to the petition, less than 4 are devoted to the propriety of the remedy decreed, and none of those 4 pages deal with whether the remedy was appropriate, conceding that a systemwide remedy could be imposed. The court focused solely on the legitimacy of imposing a systemwide remedy, neglecting to address the propriety of the terms...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles
......Board of Dental Examiners (1941) 17 Cal.2d 534, 541, .... III. . The DMV appeals from the ......
- Com. v. Stanley
-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
...... of cases, beginning with Zoning Appeals Board v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 199 A. 540 (1938), in .... III. . Consumer Publishing sets ......
- U.S. v. Morgan