Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist.

Document Cited authorities 123 Cited in 17 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date01 March 1995
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 4:62-7749-22.
Citation879 F. Supp. 1341
PartiesTheodore Whitmore STANLEY, Jesse Barber, Joyce Franklin, J.W. Mack; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America; Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public body corporate; The State of South Carolina; The Department of Education for the State of South Carolina; The Board of Education for the State of South Carolina; William P. Beckham, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; and Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina; Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Earle E. Morris, James M. Waddell, Jr., and William D. Boan, In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Defendants. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Cross-Claimant, v. The STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; The Department of Education for State of South Carolina; William P. Beckman, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars; In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of The State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Earle E. Morris; James M. Waddell, Jr.; William D. Boan; In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Cross-Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

879 F. Supp. 1341

Theodore Whitmore STANLEY, Jesse Barber, Joyce Franklin, J.W. Mack; et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America; Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public body corporate; The State of South Carolina; The Department of Education for the State of South Carolina; The Board of Education for the State of South Carolina; William P. Beckham, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; and Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina; Grady L. Patterson, Jr., Earle E. Morris, James M. Waddell, Jr., and William D. Boan, In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Defendants.

DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Cross-Claimant, v. The STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; The Department of Education for State of South Carolina; William P. Beckman, III, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Samuel M. Greer, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Cleveland L. Sellars; In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Austin Floyd, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Julian B. Wright, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Brenda K. Vernon, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Earl Bostick, Sr., In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Maxie Duke, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Laura M. Fleming, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Frank M. Hart, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Beth Pinson, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; W. Gregory Horton, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Ruby Matthews, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Robert W. Owen, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; Celia Gettys, In Official Capacity

as Member of The State Board of Education; Thomas E. McInville, In Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education; David M. Beasley, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board; Barbara S. Nielsen, in her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina; The State Budget and Control Board; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Earle E. Morris; James M. Waddell, Jr.; William D. Boan; In Their Official Capacities as Members of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Cross-Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 4:62-7749-22.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division.

March 1, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gary Haugen, Michael S. Maurer, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S.

Dennis D. Parker, N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York City, Arthur C. McFarland, Charleston, SC, for class plaintiffs.

State of S.C., J. Emory Smith, Jr., Office of Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for State of S.C. and all State defendants except State Dept. of Educ.

George C. Leventis, Office of General Counsel, Columbia, SC, for State of S.C. Dept. of Educ.

John M. Milling, Darlington, SC, Alfred A. Lindseth, Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, Atlanta, GA, for defendant, Darlington County School Dist. 

                    I. BACKGROUND ...................................................... 1351
                       A. CASE HISTORY PRIOR TO 1970 ................................... 1351
                       B. THE 1970 DESEGREGATION ORDER ................................. 1352
                       C. CASE HISTORY SINCE THE 1970 ORDER ............................ 1353
                       D. INTERVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES ............................ 1355
                   II. MOTION TO DISMISS BY STATE DEFENDANTS ........................... 1356
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1356
                       B. STANDING ..................................................... 1356
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1356
                          2. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE ON ITS OWN BEHALF .............. 1356
                          3. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN IN
                              DISTRICT ................................................. 1358
                          4. DISTRICT'S STANDING TO SUE UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES AND
                              CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ................................ 1359
                       C. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY ISSUES ........................... 1360
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1360
                
                         2. EX PARTE YOUNG EXCEPTION ................................... 1360
                         3. CONGRESSIONAL ABROGATION EXCEPTION .................... .... 1363
                            a. Generally ............................................... 1363
                            b. Title VI ................................................ 1364
                            c. EEOA .................................................... 1365
                       D. RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, LAW OF THE CASE AND
                           JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ........................................... 1367
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1367
                  III. PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER AND TRIAL ................................ 1368
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1368
                   IV. ISSUES FOR TRIAL ................................................ 1369
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1369
                    V. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES DURING TRIAL ................................. 1370
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1370
                   VI. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND ISSUANCE OF INTERIM JUNE
                        23, 1994, ORDER ................................................ 1370
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1370
                       B. PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING CONSENT ORDER ........ 1370
                       C. REASONABLENESS OF THE CONSENT ORDER .......................... 1371
                       D. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS AND FAIRNESS HEARING ................. 1372
                       E. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL/ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT ............. 1373
                       F. INTERIM JUNE 23, 1994, ORDER ................................. 1374
                  VII. MAYO HIGH SCHOOL AS A MAGNET .................................... 1375
                       A. GENERALLY .................................................... 1375
                       B. RETENTION OF RACIAL IDENTIFIABILITY .......................... 1375
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1375
                       C. DISTRICT'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE
                           LINES ....................................................... 1376
                          1. 1988-1991 ................................................. 1376
                          2. 1991-1994 ................................................. 1377
                       D. SCHOOL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES .............................. 1377
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1377
                          2. FACILITIES ................................................ 1377
                          3. RESOURCES ................................................. 1379
                          4. CURRICULUM ................................................ 1379
                          5. INSTRUCTIONAL QUALITY ..................................... 1381
                       E. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL ...................................... 1381
                          1. PRINCIPALS ................................................ 1381
                          2. FACULTY ................................................... 1381
                          3. CLASSIFIED STAFF .......................................... 1382
                       F. CLOSING OF MAYO .............................................. 1382
                          1. GENERALLY ................................................. 1382
                          2. BURDEN ON BLACK COMMUNITY ................................. 1382
                          3. FAILURE OF DISTRICT TO SEEK PRIOR APPROVAL FOR
                              PREVIOUS CLOSINGS ........................................ 1383
                          4. CLOSING OF BUTLER HIGH SCHOOL ............................. 1383
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Collins v. Thurmond
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2019
    ...court’s statement that concurrent jurisdiction is precluded by the language of the EEOA.8 (See Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.C. 1995) 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1367, reversed in part (4th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 707 ( Stanley ).) Although dicta, as the court expressly note......
  • Lopez v. Webster Cent. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • January 15, 2010
    ...receives the funds." Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a (Supp.1996). Grimes, 929 F.Supp. at 1091 (quoting Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist, 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1365 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds, 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996)). The omission of an allegation directed agains......
  • Bradacs v. Haley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • November 10, 2014
    ...discriminatory acts by the Governor's predecessors as well as a continuing failure to remedy the effects of the past acts.” 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1362 n. 9 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds 84 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.1996). However, no such allegations of discriminatory acts by Defendant H......
  • Grimes v. SUPERIOR HOME HEALTH CARE OF MIDDLE TN
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • June 19, 1996
    ...statutes (such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) an explicit definition of that phrase. Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist., 879 F.Supp. 1341, 1365 (D.S.C.1995), rev'd in part on other grounds, 84 F.3d 707 (4th "The new definition specifies that entire entities receiving federal fund......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT