Steele v. Board of Public Instruction of Leon County
| Citation | 371 F.2d 395 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22684.,22684. |
| Parties | Clifford N. STEELE et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Leroy David Clark, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Charles F. Wilson, Pensacola, Fla., James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, Theodore R. Bowers, Panama City, Fla., for appellants, Robert Belton, New York City, of counsel.
William A. O'Bryan, Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, O'Bryan, Michaels & McGehee, Tallahassee, Fla., for appellees.
John Doar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clinton Ashmore, U. S. Atty., St. John Barrett, David L. Norman, Joel M. Finkelstein, Albert S. Pergam, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States as amicus curiae.
Before WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
(1) April 22, 1963, the district court approved the defendants' desegregation plan, specifically retaining jurisdiction of the matter. May 7, 1964, the plaintiffs moved for further relief, seeking acceleration of the plan and requesting a unitary school system based on geographical attendance lines for grades 1-6. January 20, 1965, the court found the defendants to be in compliance with its outstanding order of April 22, 1963. February 5, 1965, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a hearing, noting that the court's January 20 order made no mention of the reorganization requested under the motion for further relief. April 5, 1965, the plaintiffs renewed the motion for hearing and asked for clarification as to whether the court intended to deny the motion for further relief by its order of January 20, 1965. April 7, 1965, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for clarification stating that the court denied the motion because it sought to change the basic structure of the desegregation plan. The plaintiffs appealed from this order. The defendants contend that it was not an appealable order.
The order of April 7, 1965 denying the plaintiffs' motion to modify the plan was an appealable interlocutory order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1). See Boson v. Rippy, 5 Cir.1960, 275 F.2d 850, 853; Board of Public Instruction of Duval County v. Braxton, 5 Cir.1964, 326 F.2d 616. Cf. United States v. Lynd, 5 Cir.1962, 301 F.2d 818, 822.
(2) This Court has approved, in principle, freedom of choice plans for desegregating public schools, provided that they meet certain standards. United States and Linda Stout v. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hameetman v. City of Chicago
...to modify an injunction, and such a refusal is expressly made appealable by section 1292(a)(1). Cf. Steele v. Board of Public Instruction, 371 F.2d 395, 396 (5th Cir.1967) (per curiam). In part this is what Hameetman is doing but in part he is complaining about the fact that the district co......
-
Cotton v. United States
...... is "in a very real sense a guardian of the public peace and he has a duty in the course of his work ... for the judge to give the following instruction: . "Defense counsel has heretofore made a motion ......
-
Knowles v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF LEON CTY., FLA., 26144.
...for injunctive and other relief until after the Jefferson case was decided. The Steele case was subsequently remanded by this court, 371 F. 2d 395 to permit the district court to alter its judgment to follow the requirements laid down by this court in the case of United States v. Jefferson ......