Case: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

5:51-cv-04316 | U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

Filed Date: Feb. 28, 1951

Closed Date: July 27, 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court announced in 1954 that segregated schools were inherently unequal, and in 1955 required school districts to desegregate "with all deliberate speed." It is the most famous civil rights case in American history. But it also had a specific set of plaintiffs -- schoolchildren in Topeka, Kansas -- and a specific history in its own community. This summary focuses on that history, rather than the broader setting and the Supreme Court jurisprudence. …

This is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court announced in 1954 that segregated schools were inherently unequal, and in 1955 required school districts to desegregate "with all deliberate speed." It is the most famous civil rights case in American history. But it also had a specific set of plaintiffs -- schoolchildren in Topeka, Kansas -- and a specific history in its own community. This summary focuses on that history, rather than the broader setting and the Supreme Court jurisprudence.

On February 28, 1951, a group of black parents and children residing in the Topeka, Kansas, school district filed, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, a complaint naming as defendants the district's school board and certain school administrators. The plaintiffs were represented by local NAACP cooperating attorney Charles Bledsoe and sought class action status for their case, which they filed citing what was then 8 U.S.C. § 43, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1870. Their complaint alleged that the defendants, acting pursuant to state statute, denied the plaintiff's equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by operating separate public schools for white and black children, denying black children the right to enroll in and attend the schools attended by similarly-situated white children. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conduct denied, solely on the basis of "race and color," to the child plaintiffs educational advantages, opportunities and facilities equal to those provided to white children, and that the black children forced by state law to attend racially-segregated schools "do not and cannot" enjoy the educational benefits afforded to whites. The plaintiffs alleged that some black students had to travel two miles farther to attend an all-black school than if allowed to attend the nearest all-white school. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees, and asked that the court convene a three judge panel, then required by 28 U.S.C. § 2281, to consider the constitutionality of the state statute.

On March 22, 1951, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making the same basic allegations and seeking the same relief. It named as an intervening defendant the State of Kansas. The amended complaint was itself amended on May 29, 1951, when plaintiffs' counsel amended a paragraph to specify that the education opportunities provided by the defendants to the plaintiff children were inferior to those provided to white children in numerous respects, including "physical facilities, curricula, teaching, resources, student personnel services, access, and all other educational factors, tangible and intangible...." Moreover, the amended paragraph alleged that, apart from all other factors, the racial segregation practiced by the defendants "in and of itself" constituted an inferiority in educational opportunity offered to blacks, when compared to that offered to whites.

The school board's June 7, 1951, answer denied the claimed violations of constitutional rights. It also sought to correct or clarify certain claims made in the complaint, asserting that the operation of separate schools only occurred in the district's elementary-level facilities, that the city had but a single district with multiple attendance territories, that it provided free transportation for black children to any of the four black elementary schools operated for them in the district while providing no transportation for white elementary school students, and that, on average, the distances traveled to schools by black and by white children were the same. The state's answer, filed on June 15, 1951, generally denied the plaintiffs' allegations, specifically denying that the state statute was unconstitutional (and added, as had the other defendants' answer, that the plaintiffs' complaint had mis-cited the state statute of which they complained, by citing one applicable to cities of the second class, whereas Topeka was a city of the first class). The state also asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That claim must have been rejected in an unpublished ruling, for the case was tried that summer.

After a trial of approximately ten days, on August 3, 1951, the three-judge panel sitting as the district court issued its opinion upholding the state statute and denying the plaintiffs' claims for relief. The court briefly reviewed the issues of facilities, curricula, instruction, and travel, finding that comparable educational facilities and services were provided to students of both races. It concluded that in the maintenance and operation of the separate schools "there is no willful, intentional or material discrimination." Recognizing that prior Supreme Court precedent (including Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)) allowing segregation in state-provided services seemed, to some degree, undercut by recent Supreme Court decisions, the district court adjudged that the prior cases, not having been overruled, controlled. Brown v. Board of Education, 96 F. Supp. 797 (D. Ks. 1951) (Circuit Judge Walter August Huxman). The plaintiffs appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as then permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

At the Supreme Court, the Kansas case was heard along with three other cases (from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware) challenging segregation in public education. These other cases, two of which had elementary and high school age plaintiffs and one with only high school age plaintiffs, all involved state constitutions and statutes that required segregation in public education. In contrast, the Kansas statute permitted, but did not require, cities above a certain population to maintain racially-separate school facilities. (Topeka's school board had elected to maintain segregated elementary schools.) In the South Carolina and Virginia cases, the lower federal courts found the black students' schools to have been inferior and the states were directed to equalize the facilities and services; however, the states' segregation laws were upheld and the plaintiffs were not provided access to the white students' schools during the mandated equalization programs. In the Delaware case, a state trial court awarded the plaintiffs an order requiring their immediate admission to the white students' schools. The trial court cited the inferiority of the schools the state had provided to black students and accepted the view that segregation itself results in an inferior education. Delaware's Supreme Court affirmed but intimated that, once equalization of the two sets of schools had been accomplished, the state might be able to obtain a modification of the decree.

On May 17, 1954, after twice having the parties and the United States, as amicus curiae, argue the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion declaring that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal, and therefore deprived the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Earl Warren, Chief Justice). In the four cases at issue, the lower courts had found the separate schools' "tangible" factors equal (or satisfactorily becoming so); accordingly, the Supreme Court focused on the "effect" of segregation itself on public education. In view of the importance of education as a state-provided function, the Court stated that once a state has undertaken to provide educational opportunity it must make the right available to all on equal terms. Chief Justice Warren quoted the Kansas district court's observation that public school segregation has a detrimental effect which is greater when sanctioned by law, denoting black inferiority and affecting motivation to learn. He found this observation amply supported by modern psychological authority, citing several recent studies and reports. Recognizing the wide applicability of its decision and the variety of local conditions to which it must be applied, the Court requested the parties and the United States to again argue the case, specifically to address the formulation of remedial decrees. In addition to restoring the case to the docket for further argument, the Court also invited amicus curiae briefs from those states requiring or permitting segregation in public education.

(In something of a sidelight to this historic decision, years later an internal memorandum became available which revealed the thoughts of a then-law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson about the school desegregation cases. The law clerk, William H. Rehnquist, later became a member of the Court (and its Chief Justice) but, as a law clerk in the early 1950's, he wrote that the desegregation cases' plaintiffs were wrongly asking the Court to read its own sociological views and personal moral preferences into the Constitution. In his view, Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed. As the unanimous decision reflects, Justice Jackson did not follow his law clerk's advice.)

The Supreme Court's next decision in the case occurred on May 31, 1955. In another unanimous opinion, again written by Chief Justice Warren, the Court remanded the cases to the trial courts for the crafting of appropriate decrees. The opinion observed that these courts were best suited to assess local conditions and the good faith efforts of local school officials to implement governing constitutional principles. The lower courts were reminded to consider the plaintiffs' personal interests in admission to public schools "as soon as practicable" on a nondiscriminatory basis, as well as the public interest in eliminating obstacles to such relief in an "orderly and systematic" manner. The courts were directed to require the defendants to make a "prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance" with the earlier ruling. This imprecise timeframe for action was not appreciably honed by the Court's directive that the lower courts, on remand, should "take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases." (The Delaware case, having been the sole affirmance of the four appealed cases, was remanded to that state's Supreme Court for proceedings it deemed necessary.) Brown v. Board of Education, 399 U.S. 294 (1955).

On remand in the Brown case, in Topeka, on August 2, 1955, the Kansas plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court for a hearing on the formulation of a decree. The hearing occurred on August 24, 1955, followed by issuance of a per curiam opinion by the three judge court on October 28, 1955. The court approved the plan the school board put in force for that school year. The plan's central principle was that children would be required to attend school within the district of their residence, with rare exceptions, and that race or color would not be any part of any exception to the general rule. Although the court viewed as insufficient one aspect of the plan, allowing (for that year only) kindergarten children to opt to attend schools inside or out of their residence district, the court decided that the plan sufficiently reflected the good faith of school authorities in attempting to adhere to the Supreme Court's rulings. The court also noted that at least one all-black school would, because of residence demographics, remain all-black. This result was acceptable, reasoned the court, because desegregation did not require intermingling but, instead, that children not be prevented from going to school together because of race or color. (This conceptualization of the desegregation obligation was later disapproved by the Supreme Court in Green v. School Board of New Kent County and Swann w. Charlotte/Mecklenberg.) The court retained jurisdiction over the case and regarded acceptance of the school board's plan as an interim measure.

The docket is devoid of any subsequent activity of importance until 1979. At that point, represented by private counsel, a group of black parents and schoolchildren filed a motion in the case to intervene as plaintiffs. They also filed a motion asking the court to command compliance with the earlier ruling to desegregate Topeka's schools. District Judge Richard Dean Rogers granted the motion to intervene. Brown v. Board of Education, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979). He noted that four separate cases had been filed during that decade seeking to eliminate alleged racial discrimination in Topeka's schools and that, in at least two of them, the state and the school board's successful positions had been that the plaintiffs in those cases should not be permitted to proceed and, instead, should file motions seeking relief in Brown v. Board of Education, since the court had expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the Constitution. The intervening plaintiffs alleged (1) the school board had created attendance zones that perpetuate racial discrimination, (2) schools with predominately black enrollment had facilities, equipment, curricula, and instruction substantially inferior to that provided in schools with predominately white enrollment, (3) racial disparity existed in school personnel assignments, (4) the school board had adopted an open enrollment policy perpetuating school segregation, and (5) the board adopted a long range facilities plan which also perpetuated school segregation. Without resolving any of these claims, Judge Rogers made the procedural ruling that the movants could appropriately intervene as plaintiffs. He found it unpersuasive that passage of time had mooted the original plaintiffs' interest in the case, because the case was a class action (even though modern procedures for certifying a class action did not exist when the case had begun) and the intervenors had appropriate interests in seeking compliance with the Supreme Court's earlier orders.

Discovery and motion proceedings followed, as did a trial, which resulted in the district court's order of April 9, 1987. Brown v. Board of Education, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987). Reviewing the case's history as well as other desegregation rulings, Judge Rogers observed that, in determining whether a unitary school system existed, he would assess whether characteristics of the dual system existing in 1954 either do not exist or, if they exist, whether they are not the result of past or present intentional segregative conduct of the defendants or their predecessors. He then reviewed the history of desegregation efforts in the Topeka schools, noting that some desegregation, at the high school level, preceded the 1951 filing of this case. The trial evidence included statistics which, according to the plaintiffs, demonstrated a lack of racial balance in the district's schools, in the sense that many schools' racial mix did not reflect the racial mix of the district. The judge, however, saw the statistics as a result of residential patterns, not as remnants of past discrimination nor of present intentionally discriminatory conduct. He added that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence for him to find that the residential patterns were the product of discriminatory conduct. Likewise, school transfer policies, attendance zone decisions, school space and site decisions, school closings and openings, school boundary locations, facilities quality, activities and curriculum, transportation, faculty and staff assignments, test scores, opportunities to take desegregative action, and other factors were reviewed and found racially neutral. Judge Rogers stated that the existence of some schools having a statistical predominance of one race was not the product of overt or covert intentionally segregative conduct. Thus, the new plaintiffs also could not prevail on their claim that the defendants violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since that act prohibits only intentional discrimination in operation of schools receiving federal funds and the act's implementing regulations prohibiting racially discriminatory effects had not been shown to have been violated. Judge Rogers also ruled that the Kansas governor was dismissed as a defendant and that no evidence established liability of the state's school board. The public school system in Topeka was adjudged a unitary one. The plaintiffs' claims for relief were denied and they were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

With assistance from ACLU attorneys, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In a lengthy opinion, the appellate court upheld, 2-1, limited aspects of the district court's ruling but reversed the lower court's main conclusions. Brown v. Board of Education, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989) (Circuit Judge Stephanie Kulp Seymour). In sum, Judge Seymour faulted the district court's placing the burden of proving intentional discrimination on the plaintiffs, rather than according plaintiffs the presumption that existing racial disparities in the school system were causally related to past discriminatory conduct. Reviewing the evidence with the burden of proof properly assigned, the appellate court concluded that the defendants had failed in meeting their burden of proving that the effects of past intentional discrimination had dissipated. The lower court's ruling on the alleged Title VI violation also was error, according to Judge Seymour, who affirmed the district court's dismissal of the state's governor from the case and the finding that the state's recently-created school board had no liability.

The defendants sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a brief order, Brown v. Board of Education, 503 U.S. 978 (1992), that court granted certiorari, vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of two recent Supreme Court decisions, Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992), and Bd. of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), each of which suggested that district courts should aim in school desegregation cases to relinquish jurisdiction when possible.

On remand, the appellate court reinstated its prior opinion in full, again citing the local school board's failure of proof and its' inaction rather than taking sufficient affirmative steps in the area of student and faculty/staff assignments to eliminate the vestiges of past discrimination. Judge Seymour, again writing for a 2-1 court, was of the view that the recent Supreme Court decisions changed nothing in the analysis. Brown v. Board of Education, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court declined review, so the case returned to the district court.

There, in a December 3, 1993, unpublished order, Judge Rogers stated that the issue before him was limited to the crafting of a remedial plan to eliminate the vestiges of de jure segregation in student and faculty/staff assignments. In his view, other aspects of the school system, such as educational performance, disciplinary outcomes, or classroom assignments were not part of the direct mandate from the Tenth Circuit. Discovery on remand was to be limited accordingly.

Also addressed on remand were the plaintiffs' motions for recovery of their attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The district court ruled that the fees would be calculated using local standards, rather than the higher rates prevailing in New York, where the ACLU attorneys were housed. Judge Rogers also ruled that volunteer paralegals' time spent on the case would not result in reimbursement, nor would counsel's travel time or secretarial and word processing costs. He decided, however, not to reduce the amount of recovery based on the fact that the plaintiffs were not fully successful. Brown v. Unified School District No. 501, 878 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Kan. 1995).

In 1999, the district court made its final ruling in the case. The ruling resulted from the motion of the defendant for a declaration of unitary status and order of dismissal. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. In ruling on the motion, Judge Rogers considered that the school board, after the most recent remand from the appellate court, had adopted and implemented a remedial plan with guidelines which prevented any school from being identified as a majority or minority school on the basis of the race of its faculty and staff. Likewise, the plan addressed student assignments at individual elementary, middle, and high schools in a way that, in recent years, kept minority and majority student populations within 15% of the minority and majority student figures for the district at large. The court also noted the defendant's on-going multi-cultural education programs for students, faculty, and staff, and an announced commitment to diversity and intolerance of discrimination. Granting the motion for a declaration of unitary status for the school district, Judge Rogers ruled that the vestiges of past discrimination in the school district had been eliminated to the extent practicable; and defendant had demonstrated a good faith commitment to the law and the Constitution which presaged no future need for judicial intervention. He dismissed the case on July 27, 1999. Brown v. Unified School District No. 501, 56 F. Supp.2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999).

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (5/8/2008)

Related Cases

Bolling v. Sharpe, District of Columbia (1950)

Briggs v. Elliott, District of South Carolina (1950)

Keyes v. School District No. 1, District of Colorado (1969)

Milliken v. Bradley, Eastern District of Michigan (1970)

Jenkins v. Kansas City Missouri School District, Western District of Missouri (1977)

Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Eastern District of Virginia (1951)

Allen/Davis/Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward Co., Eastern District of Virginia (1951)

Belton v. Gebhart, Bulah v. Gebhart, Delaware state trial court (1952)

People


Judge(s)

Baldock, Bobby Ray (New Mexico)

Burton, Harold Hitz (District of Columbia)

Frankfurter, Felix (District of Columbia)

Hill, Delmas Carl (Kansas)

Huxman, Walter August (Kansas)

Jackson, Robert Houghwout (District of Columbia)

McKay, Monroe G. (Utah)

Mellott, Arthur Johnson (Kansas)

Newman, William Truslow (Georgia)

Rogers, Richard Dean (Kansas)

Judge(s)

Baldock, Bobby Ray (New Mexico)

Burton, Harold Hitz (District of Columbia)

Frankfurter, Felix (District of Columbia)

Hill, Delmas Carl (Kansas)

Huxman, Walter August (Kansas)

Jackson, Robert Houghwout (District of Columbia)

McKay, Monroe G. (Utah)

Mellott, Arthur Johnson (Kansas)

Newman, William Truslow (Georgia)

Rogers, Richard Dean (Kansas)

Seymour, Stephanie Kulp (Oklahoma)

Warren, Earl (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bledsoe, Charles E. (Kansas)

Bolden, Victor A. (New York)

Carter, Robert Lee (New York)

Ennis, Bruce J. (District of Columbia)

Greenberg, Jack (New York)

Hansen, Christopher A. (New York)

Johnson, Joseph D. (Kansas)

Jones, Richard E. (Kansas)

Korman, Milton D. (District of Columbia)

Larson, Earl Richard (Minnesota)

Marshall, Thurgood (District of Columbia)

Redding, Louis L. (Delaware)

Robinson, Spottswood William III (District of Columbia)

Scott, Charles Sr. (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Almond, James Lindsay Jr. (Virginia)

Baker, Anne L. (Kansas)

Biles, Dan (Kansas)

Brewster, George M. (Kansas)

Caldwell, Peter (Kansas)

Craven, Joseph Donald (Delaware)

Davis, John W. (District of Columbia)

Davis [inactive], John W. (District of Columbia)

Ervin, Richard W. (Florida)

Fatzer, Harold R. (Kansas)

Fatzer (Dup), Harold R. (Kansas)

Figg, Robert McC. Jr. (South Carolina)

Gallagher, Carl A. (Kansas)

Gentry, Thomas J. (Arkansas)

Goodell, Lester M. (Kansas)

Hayes, George E.C. (District of Columbia)

Henson, Charles N. (Kansas)

Hobart, Charles (Kansas)

Hughes, Harold (Kansas)

Lake, I. Beverly (North Carolina)

McAtee, Charles D. (Kansas)

McQueary, Willis H. (Kansas)

Moore, T. Justin (Virginia)

Nabrit, James M. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Nichols, Karen A. (Kansas)

Odum, Ralph E. (Florida)

Porter, James (Kansas)

Robertson, Archibald G. (Virginia)

Sebelius, Keith G. (Kansas)

Shepperd, John Ben (Texas)

Stephan, Robert T. (Kansas)

Summerton, S. C. (South Carolina)

Sybert, C. Ferdinand (Maryland)

Waldrep, Burnell (Texas)

Williamson, Mac Q. (Oklahoma)

Wilson, Paul E. (Kansas)

Young, Albert (Delaware)

Other Attorney(s)

Rankin, J. Lee (New York)

Reynolds, William Bradford (District of Columbia)

Sobeloff, Simon E. (Maryland)

Thompson, David M. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

51-00316

Docket (pre-1990)

March 12, 1993

March 12, 1993

Docket

51-00316

Complaint (Archival version)

Feb. 28, 1951

Feb. 28, 1951

Complaint

51-00316

Amended Complaint

March 22, 1951

March 22, 1951

Complaint

5:51-cv-04316

Amendment to Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint

May 29, 1951

May 29, 1951

Complaint

5:51-cv-04316

Answers of Defendants to Amended Complaint as Amended in Paragraph 8 Thereof

June 7, 1951

June 7, 1951

Pleading / Motion / Brief

5:51-cv-04316

Separate Answer of the State of Kansas [to Amended Complaint]

June 15, 1951

June 15, 1951

Pleading / Motion / Brief

5:51-cv-04316

Decree

Aug. 3, 1951

Aug. 3, 1951

Order/Opinion

51-00316

Opinion

98 F.Supp. 797

Aug. 3, 1951

Aug. 3, 1951

Order/Opinion

51-00316

Transcript of Proceedings

July 8, 1952

July 8, 1952

Transcript

5:51-cv-04316

"A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" (Memo from law clerk William H. Rehnquist to Justice Robert H. Jackson)

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 1952

Dec. 12, 1952

Internal memorandum

Resources

Title Description External URL Date / External URL

Recovering Untold Stories: An Enduring Legacy of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

The book linked in this resource captures the first-person narratives of individuals who were plaintiffs or whose families were represented in the five cases consolidated by the United States Supreme… Jan. 1, 2018

Jan. 1, 2018

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/...

Brown v. The Board of Education

Brown65

In the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka, Kansas chapter of the agreed to again challenge the “separate but equal” doctrine governing public education. May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

https://brown65.the74million.org/...

The Oyez Project, Brown v Board of Education (II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Oyez Project

Information about the Supreme Court Case litigation, including the written opinion; no audio recordings are available. May 31, 1955

May 31, 1955

http://www.oyez.org/...

"With an Even Hand": Brown v. Board at 50

The Library of Congress

"With an Even Hand" is divided into three sections. The exhibition examines court cases that laid the ground work for the Brown v. Board decision, explores the Supreme Court argument and the public's… Aug. 10, 2004

Aug. 10, 2004

http://www.loc.gov/...

Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Dr. Kenneth Clark

Dr. Kenneth Clark, Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, an African-American psychologist, conducted sociological studies to com… Nov. 4, 1985

Nov. 4, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

A Retrospective of Brown v. Board of Education: The Ghosts of Segregation Still Haunt Topeka, Kansas: A Case Study on the Role of the Federal Courts in School Desegregation

Karl A. Cole-Frieman

Oct. 1, 1996

Oct. 1, 1996

None

Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson, Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Paul Wilson represented the Topeka Board of Education in the landmark Brown v. Board of Educat… Oct. 26, 1985

Oct. 26, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Hon. Robert Lee Carter

Robert Lee Carter, Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). The Hon. Robert L. Carter began working as legal counsel to the NAACP in 1944. During the 19… Nov. 5, 1985

Nov. 5, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Herbert Brownell

Herbert Brownell, Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Born in 1904, Herbert Brownell attended Yale Law School and began practicing law in New York … Nov. 15, 1985

Nov. 15, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

Henry Hampton Collection: Harry Briggs, Jr.

Harry Briggs, Jr., Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Harry Briggs, Jr. is the son of Harry and Eliza Briggs, one of the families who sued the scho… Nov. 2, 1985

Nov. 2, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

Henry Hampton Collection: Interview of Eliza Briggs and Harry Briggs, Sr.

Eliza and Harry Briggs, Sr., Henry Hampton Collection

This interview was done for Henry Hampton's Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Eliza and Harry Briggs, husband and wife, sued the school board in Clarendon County, South Ca… Oct. 25, 1985

Oct. 25, 1985

http://digital.wustl.edu/...

Docket

Last updated Aug. 10, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
314

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiffs from Dist. Court decision (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

May 7, 1987

May 7, 1987

315

APPEAL DOCKETED in 10th Circuit and assigned Dkt No. 87-1668 (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

May 18, 1987

May 18, 1987

342

LETTER from 10CCA stating petition for writ of cert filed 4/26/90 & assigned Supreme Court No. 89-1681 (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

May 10, 1990

May 10, 1990

343

ORDER ENTERED-US SUPREME COURT: Petition for writ of cert in Supreme Court No. 89-1681 (USCA No. 87-1668) --granted. Judgment vacated & case remanded to USCA for further consideration. (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

April 27, 1992

April 27, 1992

346

MANDATE, 10CCA: reversing decision of the district court & reinstating USCA's prior opinion. The cause is remanded to the USDC for the District of Kansas for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this court. [Appeal [314-1] (cc: all counsel) (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

March 12, 1993

March 12, 1993

347

CERTIFICATE of service of interr to USD 501, by intervenor-plaintiffs (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 04/16/1993)

April 15, 1993

April 15, 1993

348

LETTER from 10CCA stating petition for writ of cert was filed on 4/26/93 & assigned Supreme Court No. 92-1568 (USCA No. 87-1668) re: appeal [314-1] (ICMSUSER) Modified on 05/14/1993 (Entered: 05/14/1993)

May 14, 1993

May 14, 1993

349

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka to extend time to 6/17/93 to answer or object to pltfs' 5th interr; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 05/17/1993)

May 17, 1993

May 17, 1993

350

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting deft USD 501s motion to extend time to 6/17/93 to answer or object to pltfs' 5th interr [349-1] (cc: all counsel) (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 05/18/1993)

May 18, 1993

May 18, 1993

351

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka to extend time to 7/19/93 to respond to pltfs' 5th interr, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 06/18/1993)

June 17, 1993

June 17, 1993

352

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting deft USD 501 Topeka's motion to extend time to 7/19/93 to respond to pltfs' 5th interr [351-1] (cc: all counsel) (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 06/18/1993)

June 18, 1993

June 18, 1993

353

LETTER from 10CCA stating petition for writ of cert was denied by Supreme Court on 6/21/93. Appeal #87-1668 (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 07/06/1993)

July 6, 1993

July 6, 1993

354

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka for order extending time to answer or object to pltf's 5th set of interrogatories referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (CAM) (Entered: 07/19/1993)

July 19, 1993

July 19, 1993

356

CERTIFICATE of svc by defendant USD 501 Topeka of answers to pltf- intervenor's interrogatories & objections to pltf-intervenor's interrogatory (CAM) (Entered: 08/03/1993)

Aug. 2, 1993

Aug. 2, 1993

357

MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers with attachments. EXPANSION FOLDER (KM) (Entered: 08/19/1993)

Aug. 19, 1993

Aug. 19, 1993

358

MEMORANDUM of law in support by plaintiff re: motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (KM) (Entered: 08/19/1993)

Aug. 19, 1993

Aug. 19, 1993

359

AFFIDAVIT of Charles S. Scott, Jr. re: motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (KM) (Entered: 08/19/1993)

Aug. 19, 1993

Aug. 19, 1993

360

CERTIFICATE of mailing of affidavit and attached attorney fee statement by plaintiffs. (KM) (Entered: 08/20/1993)

Aug. 20, 1993

Aug. 20, 1993

361

MOTION by deft USD 501 to extend time until 10/3/93 to respond to pltf's application for attorneys fees and cost referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (VLW) (Entered: 08/31/1993)

Aug. 30, 1993

Aug. 30, 1993

362

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting motion by deft USD 501 to extend time until 10/3/93 to respond to pltf's application for attorneys fees and cost [361-1] (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 09/02/1993)

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

363

ORDER ENTERED: by Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman Status Conference 9/20/93 at 1:30 pm (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 09/02/1993)

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

364

SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED: Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman Final Pretrial Conference set for 1:30 pm on 3/30/94. Trial set for 4/18/94 before RDR. Fact discovery ddl set for 1/15/94 (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 09/23/1993)

Sept. 23, 1993

Sept. 23, 1993

365

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka to extend time to resp to pltfs' application for attys' feses & costs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (LAK) (Entered: 10/01/1993)

Sept. 30, 1993

Sept. 30, 1993

366

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting deft's (USD No. 501) motion to extend time (30) days or until 11/2/93 to resp to pltfs' application for attys' fees & costs [365-1] (cc: all counsel) (CEL) (Entered: 10/04/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

367

MOTION by plaintiffs to compel discovery & for costs referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman (CAM) (Entered: 10/25/1993)

Oct. 20, 1993

Oct. 20, 1993

369

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT by plaintiffs re: motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (CAM) (Entered: 10/26/1993)

Oct. 25, 1993

Oct. 25, 1993

370

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka to extend time to respond to pltfs' application for attorneys' fees & costs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (LAK) (Entered: 11/02/1993)

Nov. 2, 1993

Nov. 2, 1993

371

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting deft's motion to extend time to respond to pltfs' application for attorneys' fees & costs to 11/17/93 [370-1] (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 11/04/1993)

Nov. 4, 1993

Nov. 4, 1993

372

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to compel discovery & for costs referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman [367-1] (CAM) (Entered: 11/05/1993)

Nov. 5, 1993

Nov. 5, 1993

373

REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion to compel discovery & for costs referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman [367-1] (CAM) (Entered: 11/12/1993)

Nov. 12, 1993

Nov. 12, 1993

374

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka for determination of issue of law prior to trial, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (DO) (Entered: 11/15/1993)

Nov. 12, 1993

Nov. 12, 1993

375

MEMORANDUM/BRIEF in support by defendant USD 501 Topeka re: motion for determination of issue of law prior to trial, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [374-1] (DO) (Entered: 11/15/1993)

Nov. 12, 1993

Nov. 12, 1993

376

ORDER ENTERED: by Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman overruling w/o prej for reassertion in compliance w/local rules motion for attorney Victor A. Bolden to appear pro hac vice [368-1] (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 11/16/1993)

Nov. 16, 1993

Nov. 16, 1993

377

CERTIFICATE of svc by intervening pltfs Charles Smith & Kimberly Smith of interrogatories & request for admission to be answered by authorized representative of USD (CAM) (Entered: 11/17/1993)

Nov. 17, 1993

Nov. 17, 1993

378

RESPONSE by defendant USD 501 Topeka to pltfs' motion for attorney fees and costs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (LAK) (Entered: 11/19/1993)

Nov. 17, 1993

Nov. 17, 1993

379

MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time until 12/30/93 to reply to defts' response to pltfs' application for attorneys' fees and costs, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (DO) (Entered: 11/26/1993)

Nov. 24, 1993

Nov. 24, 1993

380

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting pltfs' motion to extend time until 12/30/93 to reply to defts' response to pltfs' application for attorneys' fees and costs [379-1] (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 11/29/1993)

Nov. 29, 1993

Nov. 29, 1993

382

MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney Victor A. Bolden to appear pro hac vice; referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman (LAK) (Entered: 12/07/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993

Dec. 3, 1993

FILING FEE PAID: on 12/3/93 in the amount of $ 25.00, receipt # 033140 for pro hac vice fees for Victor A. Bolden (LAK) (Entered: 12/07/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993

Dec. 3, 1993

383

ORDER ENTERED: by Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman granting motion for attorney Victor A. Bolden to appear pro hac vice [382-1] (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 12/10/1993)

Dec. 10, 1993

Dec. 10, 1993

384

CERTIFICATE of svc by defendant USD 501 Topeka of objections to pltf-intervenors' 6th set of interrogatories & request for production of documents (CAM) (Entered: 12/14/1993)

Dec. 13, 1993

Dec. 13, 1993

385

REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs to response to motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357- 1] (CAM) (Entered: 01/03/1994)

Jan. 3, 1994

Jan. 3, 1994

386

REPLY by Charles S Scott to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (LH) (Entered: 01/04/1994)

Jan. 3, 1994

Jan. 3, 1994

387

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka for permission to file surreply in response to pltfs' reply in support of pltfs' motion for fees & expenses referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (CAM) (Entered: 01/13/1994)

Jan. 12, 1994

Jan. 12, 1994

388

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting deft USD 501's motion for permission to file surreply in response to pltfs' reply in support of pltfs' motion for fees & expenses [387-1] (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 01/13/1994)

Jan. 13, 1994

Jan. 13, 1994

389

MOTION by plaintiffs to compel defts to respond to pltfs' 6th set of interrogatories w/brief in support referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman (CAM) (Entered: 01/19/1994)

Jan. 18, 1994

Jan. 18, 1994

390

SURREBUTTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USD 501 Topeka of deft's opposition to pltfs' motion for fees and costs, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (DO) (Entered: 01/25/1994)

Jan. 24, 1994

Jan. 24, 1994

391

SURREBUTTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USD 501 Topeka of deft's opposition to the motion of Charles Scott, Jr. for an award of attorney's fees and costs, referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (DO) (Entered: 01/25/1994)

Jan. 24, 1994

Jan. 24, 1994

392

RESPONSE by defendant USD 501 Topeka to motion to compel defts to respond to pltfs' 6th set of interrogatories w/brief in support referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman [389-1] (DO) (Entered: 01/31/1994)

Jan. 29, 1994

Jan. 29, 1994

393

WITNESS & EXHIBIT list by defendant USD 501 Topeka (ICMSUSER) (Entered: 03/04/1994)

March 3, 1994

March 3, 1994

394

WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST submitted by plaintiffs (CAM) (Entered: 03/04/1994)

March 3, 1994

March 3, 1994

395

AMENDED WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST submitted by plaintiffs (CAM) (Entered: 03/17/1994)

March 16, 1994

March 16, 1994

396

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in support by plaintiffs re: [389-1] motion to compel defts to respond to pltfs' 6th set of interrogatories w/brief in support referred to Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman [389-1] (CAM) (Entered: 03/24/1994)

March 23, 1994

March 23, 1994

397

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman granting & overruling in part pltfs' motion to compel discovery & for costs [367-1] & overruling in its entirety pltfs' notice of motion to compel defts to respond to pltfs' 6th set of interrogatories 389-1] 4 pages (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 03/31/1994)

March 30, 1994

March 30, 1994

398

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Ronald Newman granting pltfs' motion for reconsideration of court's order entered 4/30/94 related to pltfs' motions to compel discovery [367-1] & [389-1] 2 pages (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 04/01/1994)

April 1, 1994

April 1, 1994

399

NOTICE by USD 501 Topeka of taking deposition duces tecum of Dr. Leonard B. Stevens on 4/8/94 (CAM) (Entered: 04/04/1994)

April 1, 1994

April 1, 1994

400

SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST submitted by plaintiffs (CAM) (Entered: 04/07/1994)

April 6, 1994

April 6, 1994

401

CERTIFICATE of service by defendant USD 501 Topeka of: answers to plaintiff-intervenors' interrogatory no. 23 and 24; answers to plaintiff- intervenors' interrogatory no. 25 and 26 answered by Rome Mitchell; and answers to plaintiff-intervenors' interrogatory no. 25 and 26 answered by Scott McCully. (DO) (Entered: 04/11/1994)

April 8, 1994

April 8, 1994

402

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF submitted by plaintiffs (CAM) (Entered: 04/13/1994)

April 13, 1994

April 13, 1994

403

TRIAL BRIEF submitted by defendant USD 501 Topeka (CAM) (Entered: 04/14/1994)

April 13, 1994

April 13, 1994

404

RETURN OF SERVICE by defendant of subpoena - Served Curtis Hartenberger 4/18/94 (CAM) (Entered: 04/19/1994)

April 18, 1994

April 18, 1994

405

MINUTE SHEET of trial to Court at Topeka, KS, RDR: (Bertelli, CSR) Trial began 4/18/94 & reconvened 4/19/94, 4/20/94 & 4/21/94. Counsel to report back to court within 2 weeks (CAM) Modified on 10/05/1998 (Entered: 04/22/1994)

April 21, 1994

April 21, 1994

406

TRANSCRIPT of testimony held 4/20/94 before Hon. RDR; I volume (Bertelli, CSR) (CAM) (Entered: 06/15/1994)

June 14, 1994

June 14, 1994

407

MINUTE SHEET: Topeka, KS, 7/5/94, RDR: Telephone conference (CAM) (Entered: 07/05/1994)

July 5, 1994

July 5, 1994

408

EXHIBIT list by plaintiffs (CAM) (Entered: 07/14/1994)

July 12, 1994

July 12, 1994

409

MINUTE SHEET of court trial @ Topeka, KS: Horenkamp, CSR - U/A Court to issue order (CAM) (Entered: 07/15/1994)

July 13, 1994

July 13, 1994

410

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers: Re the motion for attorney fees and costs [357-1] (See order for details) (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 07/15/1994)

July 14, 1994

July 14, 1994

411

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers. Desegregation plan submitted by deft in response to mandate of 10CCA addresses nature & scope of constitutional violation in equitable manner. Deft's plan is therefore approved with modifications suggested in opinion. Deft to submit formal order directing remedial action for court's signature within 10 days. 26 pages terminating case (cc: all counsel) (ADMIN) (Entered: 03/16/1999)

July 25, 1994

July 25, 1994

412

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers. Court approves Remedy Plan dated 6/16/94. For details, see order (cc: all counsel) (LAK) (Entered: 08/08/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994

Aug. 8, 1994

413

MOTION w/memorandum in support by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order entered 8/8/94; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (LAK) (Entered: 08/17/1994)

Aug. 17, 1994

Aug. 17, 1994

414

RESPONSE by defendants to pltfs' motion for reconsideration of order entered 8/8/94; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [413-1] (MB) (Entered: 08/22/1994)

Aug. 19, 1994

Aug. 19, 1994

415

SUPPLEMENT MOTION by plaintiffs re: [357-1] motion for attorney fees and costs referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [357-1] (CAM) (Entered: 09/23/1994)

Sept. 23, 1994

Sept. 23, 1994

416

MOTION by defendant USD 501 Topeka to extend time to respond to pltfs' supplemental motion for atty fees & costs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (LAK) (Entered: 10/11/1994)

Oct. 7, 1994

Oct. 7, 1994

417

RESPONSE by defendant re: supplemental motion for atty's fees & costs [415-1] (CAM) (Entered: 10/17/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

418

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting motion to extend time until 10/14/94 to respond to pltfs' supplemental motion for atty fees & costs [416-1] (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 10/17/1994)

Oct. 17, 1994

Oct. 17, 1994

419

REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of pltfs' supplemental motion for attys' fees & costs [415-1] (CAM) (Entered: 10/24/1994)

Oct. 24, 1994

Oct. 24, 1994

420

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting in part pltf's motion for reconsideration of order entered 8/8/94 [413-1]. (See order for details) 3 pages (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 10/26/1994)

Oct. 26, 1994

Oct. 26, 1994

421

NOTICE of svc by defendant of annual monitoring report (CAM) (Entered: 11/02/1994)

Nov. 1, 1994

Nov. 1, 1994

422

MOTION by plaintiffs to withdraw attorney Victor A. Bolden referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (CAM) Modified on 12/13/1994 (Entered: 11/14/1994)

Nov. 14, 1994

Nov. 14, 1994

423

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting motion to withdraw attorney Victor A. Bolden [422-1] attorney Victor A Bolden for Oliver Brown (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 12/19/1994)

Dec. 19, 1994

Dec. 19, 1994

424

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers: Pltfs' motion & supplemental motion for attorneys' fees & costs--granted, & deft shall pay pltfs' fees & costs based on following calculations (see order for details) 17 pages (cc: all counsel) (CAM) (Entered: 02/22/1995)

Feb. 21, 1995

Feb. 21, 1995

425

NOTICE by defendant of attendance boundary change & modification to M-to-M transfer policy re: [412-1] order [412-1] (CAM) (Entered: 06/06/1995)

June 5, 1995

June 5, 1995

426

SATISFACTION by intervenor-plaintiffs of order regarding attorneys' fees and expenses dated 2/21/95 (Doc. 424) (MB) (Entered: 08/15/1995)

Aug. 14, 1995

Aug. 14, 1995

427

SATISFACTION of order regarding attys' fees & expenses by intervenor-plaintiff re: Order filed 2/21/95 [424-1] (CAM) (Entered: 09/15/1995)

Sept. 14, 1995

Sept. 14, 1995

428

CERTIFICATE of svc on 11/1/95 by defendant of Annual Monitoring Report of deft (CAM) (Entered: 11/02/1995)

Nov. 1, 1995

Nov. 1, 1995

429

APPLICATION by deft USD 501 Topeka for order for expansion of school placement of elementary school ESL program; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (MS) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996

June 3, 1996

430

NOTICE of modification to enhanced M to M transfer policy and to ESL staff training requirements by defendant USD 501 Topeka (MS) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996

June 3, 1996

431

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting motion by deft USD 501 Topeka for order for expansion of school placement of elementary school ESL program; [429-1] (cc: all counsel) (MS) (Entered: 06/13/1996)

June 13, 1996

June 13, 1996

432

NOTICE of svc of Annual Monitoring Report by defendants with attached Annual Monitoring Report of deft Unified School District No. 501, Shawnee County, KS (MS) (Entered: 11/04/1996)

Nov. 1, 1996

Nov. 1, 1996

433

NOTICE of change of address by American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004-2400 (MB) (Entered: 06/23/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

RECEIVED ORIGINAL APPEAL RECORD exhibits (maps) from CCA 10th circuit [314-1] (ICMSUSER) Modified on 08/11/1997 (Entered: 08/11/1997)

Aug. 8, 1997

Aug. 8, 1997

434

NOTICE of svc of Annual Monitoring Report with attached Annual Monitoring Report pursuant to Court's Order filed 8/8/94 - by defendant USD 501 Topeka (MS) Modified on 11/03/1998 (Entered: 11/05/1997)

Nov. 3, 1997

Nov. 3, 1997

435

NOTICE OF SERVICE of Annual Monitoring Report by defendants filed pursuant to the court's order of 8/8/94 (with attached Annual Monitoring Report) (MS) (Entered: 11/03/1998)

Nov. 2, 1998

Nov. 2, 1998

436

NOTICE (ERRATA) by defendant re: the Annual Monitoring Report (Doc. 435) (MS) (Entered: 12/03/1998)

Dec. 1, 1998

Dec. 1, 1998

437

NOTICE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAM CHANGE by defendant (MS) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

April 14, 1999

April 14, 1999

438

MOTION for unitary status by defendant USD 501 Topeka; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (MS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

April 16, 1999

April 16, 1999

439

MEMORANDUM BRIEF by defendant USD 501 Topeka in support of motion for unitary status by defendant USD 501 Topeka; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers [438-1] (MS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

April 16, 1999

April 16, 1999

440

MOTION to extend time to 5/28/99 to file their response to deft's motion for unitary status by plaintiffs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (MS) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

April 26, 1999

April 26, 1999

441

ORDER ENTERED: by Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers granting motion to extend time to 5/28/99 to file their response to deft's motion for unitary status by plaintiffs [440-1] (cc: all counsel) (MS) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

April 27, 1999

April 27, 1999

442

MOTION to extend time to 6/28/99 to file their response to the deft's motion for unitary status by plaintiffs; referred to Senior Judge Richard D. Rogers (MS) (Entered: 05/25/1999)

May 25, 1999

May 25, 1999

Case Details

State / Territory: Kansas

Case Type(s):

School Desegregation

Special Collection(s):

Featured Historical Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 28, 1951

Closing Date: July 27, 1999

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Current and future African-American students in Topeka public schools.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Board of Education of Topeka (Topeka), City

Kansas, State

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1955 - 1999

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Education

Racial segregation

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Type of Facility:

Government-run