TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ceiners Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22, Earlis Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22

Ceiners JACKSON Et Al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 Et Al., Appellees; Earlis JACKSON Et Al., Appellants, v. MARVELL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22 Et Al., Appellees

Ceiners Jackson v. Marvell Sch. Dist. No. 22, Earlis Jackson v. Marvell Sch. Dist. No. 22, 425 F.2d 211 (8th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 18, 1970
Docket
No. 20124
Judges
Matthes, Lay, Heaney
Citations
425 F.2d 211

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time we are required to determine whether the appellee school district has adopted and placed into effect a plan for fully desegregating its schools.

In Jackson II, decided on October 2, 1969, reported at 416 F.2d 380 , 8 Cir., we *212 reversed the judgment of the district court and directed it “to require the Marvell School District to file * * * a plan which will convert the present organization of the public schools of Marvell to a unitary, nonracial system. The plan shall eliminate all vestiges of the freedom-of-choice provisions and shall be fully implemented and become effective no later than January 19, 1970.” Id. at 385.

On remand, the district court entered an order on October 16, 1969, directing the district to submit a plan not later than December 1, 1969, and granting plaintiffs 20 days thereafter to respond. In compliance with that order, the district filed a report in which it proposed to restructure the schools beginning January 19, 1970, as follows: (a) all students in grades 1 through 3 were to be assigned to the site now known as Marvell Elementary School; (b) all students in grades 4 through 9 were to be assigned to the site now known as Tate Elementary School and Tate High School; (c) all students in grades 10 through 12 were to be assigned to the site now known as Marvell High School; (d) all faculty members willing to remain were to be retained and will be so assigned as to realize the maximum utilization of their training and experience without regard to their race.

Under date of December 15, counsel for plaintiffs informed counsel for the school district that in light of the plan proposed by the school district “to which plaintiffs have no objections at this time” there was no need for a hearing to be held.

In the meantime, however, and apparently without knowledge by plaintiffs' counsel at the time the aforesaid letter was written, the superintendent of the district notified all parents in writing of the restructuring of the schools as shown above and further informed them that “insofar as possible students will stay with their same teachers.”

The notice from the superintendent precipitated the filing by plaintiffs on January 12, 1970, of a motion to cite the defendants for contempt of court. The motion was premised upon the proposal of the defendants to continue segregation of the classes.

Evidence was not heard on the motion for citation for contempt. However, the district court did hold a hearing on January 14, 1970, at which time the judge ruled from the bench that the plan submitted would be approved with the exception of Subsection (d) relating to the faculty. On January 19, the court’s formal order, dated January 16, approving the plan as modified with respect to Subsection (d), was filed. In due time, plaintiffs appealed from that order.

The effect of the approval of the order as demonstrated by correspondence attached to appellees’ brief between counsel for appellees and the district judge is to approve the segregation of the races among classes within the several facilities for the remainder of the 1969-70 school year.

Plaintiffs challenge the propriety of the court’s failure to require the district to desegregate not only the school facilities but the classes beginning January 19, 1970. They insist that we should reverse and require immediate desegregation of the classes.

We hold the court fell into error in sanctioning the district’s ingenious effort to circumvent the plain meaning of our decision. It is settled doctrine that segregation of the races in classrooms constitutes invidious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Johnson v. Jackson Parish School Board, 420 F.2d 692 (5th Cir., 1970). See McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 83 S.Ct. 1433 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 , 70 S.Ct. 851 , 94 L.Ed. 1149 (1950).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court. Upon due consideration and with particular reference to the brief time remaining in the school year, we refrain from interfering with *213 the assignment of students in the Marvell School District for the 1969-70 school year.

1

However, we direct the district court to enter an order requiring the district to fully and effectively desegregate not only all facilities but the faculty and classes effective at the beginning of the 1970-71 school year.

Plaintiffs are allowed costs on this appeal.

1

. See Hall v. St. Helena’s Parish Board of Education, 424 F.2d 320 (5th Cir., 1970), in which the court recalled its previous order of March 6, 1970, ordering immediate desegregation when it discovered that the St. Helena Parish schools were to close for the summer recess at the end of April.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1971: 21972: 11973: 21980: 219712026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Asa M. Christian v. Board of Education of Strong School District No. 83 of Union County440 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1971)
  2. Bradley v. Milliken484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973)
  3. Adams v. United States620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1980)
  4. United States v. State of Texas330 F. Supp. 235 (E.D. Tex. 1971)
  5. Delores Clark v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District465 F.2d 1044 (8th Cir. 1972)
  6. Bradley v. Milliken484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., Minors, by Jerrianne Adams, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Jerrianne Adams Catherine M. Neel and Camille A. Neel, Minors, by Catherine Neel, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Catherine Neel Mary Edington and Susan Edington, Minors, by Horace Edington, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Horace Edington, the Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools v. United States of America, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1980)
  2. Adams v. United States620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1980)
  3. Bradley v. Milliken484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973)
  4. Bradley v. Milliken484 F.2d 215 (6th Cir. 1973)
  5. Delores Clark v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District465 F.2d 1044 (8th Cir. 1972)
  6. United States v. State of Texas330 F. Supp. 235 (E.D. Tex. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
McNeese v. Bd. of Educ. for Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 187 Cahokia, 373 U.S. 668 (1963) 783
McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ., 339 U.S. 637 (1950) 130
Johnson v. Jackson Parish Sch. Bd., Andrews v, 420 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1970) 5
Hall v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 424 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1970) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list