Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, Civ. No. 9105.
Decision Date | 20 June 1957 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 9105. |
Citation | 152 F. Supp. 114 |
Parties | Stephen MOORE, Jr., minor by Stephen Moore, Sr., his father and next friend, Dennis Spriggs, minor by James Spriggs, his father and next friend, Roslyn Slade, minor by W. B. Slade, her father and next friend, Patricia Garland, minor by Dellas Garland, her father and next friend, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, David G. Harry, Pres., Howard S. O'Neill, G. Robert Pennington, Samuel W. Galbreath, Mrs. Robert (Blanche S.) Fletcher, Charles W. Willis, Superintendent of the Schools of Harford County, Maryland. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Tucker R. Dearing, Dearing & Toadvine, Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Robert B. Watts, Brown, Allen & Watts, Baltimore, Md., and Jack Greenberg, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Edward C. Wilson, Jr., Bel Air, Md., and Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
This action was brought by four Negro children, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, seeking admission to certain public schools in Harford County, Maryland. The background and first stages of the case are detailed in an opinion filed herein on November 23, 1956, D.C., 146 F.Supp. 91.
Following that opinion, the four plaintiffs and eight other children, who have asked and been granted leave to intervene in this case, filed appeals with the State Board of Education from the refusal of the Superintendent of Schools of Harford County to grant their applications for transfer from consolidated schools for colored children to various white schools which were not desegregated in September, 1956.
While those appeals were pending before the State Board, on February 6, 1957, the Harford County Board adopted the following "Extension of the Desegregation Policy for 1957-1958":
After a hearing, the State Board dismissed the appeals, finding that "the Harford County Board acted within the policy established by the State Board", that "the County Superintendent acted in good faith within the authority set forth in the August 1, 1956, Desegregation Policy adopted by the County Board",1 that "the Desegregation Policy was adopted in a bona fide effort to make a reasonable start toward actual desegregation of the Harford County public schools", and that "this initial effort the desegregation of three grades in two elementary schools has been carried out without any untoward incidents". The State Board also took "cognizance of the resolution of the County Board of February 6, 1957", set out above herein, "as well as the testimony to the effect that the proposed Harford County Junior College, which is to be established in Bel Air in the fall of 1957, will open on a desegregated basis, and also the testimony to the effect that the present program of new buildings and additions will make further desegregation possible".
After the decision of the State Board, plaintiffs set this case for further hearing, as provided in the earlier decree, 146 F.Supp. at page 98. That hearing was held on April 18, 1957. Charles W. Willis, the Harford County Superintendent, explained and amplified the February 6, 1957 resolution of the County Board. The President of the Board and its counsel accepted that interpretation. So explained and amplified, the plan was substantially the same as the plan which was later adopted by the County Board on May 1, 1957, as follows:
At the April, 1957 hearing, I ruled tentatively that the plan was generally satisfactory for the elementary grades, but not for the high school grades, and suggested that the parties attempt to agree on a modified plan. Conferences between counsel were held, but no agreement was reached. The County Board, however, on June 5, 1957, modified the plan as follows:
The modified plan was presented to the court at a hearing on June 11, 1957. It was made clear that when an elementary school has been desegregated, all Negro children living in the area served by that school will have the same right to attend the school that a white child living in the same place would have, and the same option to attend that school or the appropriate consolidated school that a white child will have. The same rule will apply to the high schools, all of which operate at both junior high and senior high levels, as they become desegregated, grade...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
...Norfolk, Va. v. Beckett), 4 Cir., 246 F.2d 325, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 855, 78 S.Ct. 83, 2 L.Ed.2d 63, and Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, Md., 152 F. Supp. 114, relating to segregation in the public 11 "? 54-74. * * * "(6) `Any malpractice, or any unlawful or dishonest o......
-
State of Alabama v. United States
...929, cert. denied 1958, 356 U.S. 958, 78 S.Ct. 994, 2 L.Ed.2d 1065 (seven pupils ordered admitted); Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, Maryland, D.Md., 1957, 152 F.Supp. 114, affirmed sub nom., Slade v. Board of Education of Harford County, Maryland, 4 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 291, ......
-
United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education
...schedule applicable to the school population generally. Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, D.Md. 1957, 146 F.Supp. 91 and 152 F.Supp. 114, aff'd sub. nom. Slade v. Board of Education, 4 Cir. 1958, 252 F.2d 191, cert. den'd 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1157 (1958). This......
-
Slack v. Atlantic White Tower System, Inc.
...discrimination in public education." Varying progress has been made in the several counties. See e. g. Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, D.C.D. Md., 152 F.Supp. 114, affirmed Slade v. Board of Education of Harford County, 4 Cir., 252 F.2d 291, certiorari denied 357 U.S. 906, 78......