Liddell v. Board of Education

469 F. Supp. 1304
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedApril 12, 1979
DocketNo. 72-100C(1)
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 469 F. Supp. 1304 (Liddell v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liddell v. Board of Education, 469 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D. Mo. 1979).

Opinion

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. CASE HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT.

A. Stipulation of Facts.

B. The Board of Education.

C. State of Missouri and the State Board of Education.

D. Pre-Brown Conditions.

1. Dual school system.
2. Discriminatory laws.
3. Demographics.
4. Board activities.

E. 1954-56 Desegregation Plan.

F. Resegregative Factors.

1. Socio-demographic changes in St. Louis.

2. Housing segregation.
3. Title I.

G. Resulting De Facto Resegregation.

1. Transitions in the schools.

2. Changing pattern in school enrollment (excluding Harris Teacher's College).

3. Racial imbalance in the St. Louis public schools.

4. Schools referred to as vestiges.

H. Actions of the Board.

1. Adoption of the neighborhood school system.
2. Student transfers.

a. Transfers concomitant to desegregation.

b. Permissive transfers.

c. Special transfers.

[1308]*13083. Boundaries and feeder patterns.

4. Redistricting.
5. Transportation.

a. Intact busing.

b. Busing 1964-78.

6. School construction.
7. School closings.
8. Schools with city-wide enrollment,

a. The Technical high schools.

9. Staff.

a. Faculty.

b. Non-certificated personnel.

c. Administrators.

d. Pupil-teacher ratio.

10. Curriculum and facilities.

a. Curriculum.

b. Facilities.

c. Retentions and withdrawals.

11. Magnet schools.

a. Admissions to the magnet schools.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

A. Governing Constitutional Principles.

B. Effectiveness of the 1954-56 Desegregation Plan.

C. Burden of Proof.

D. Racial Imbalance in the St. Louis Schools.

IV. POSITIONS AND PLANS OF THE PARTIES.

V. APPENDIX.

A. Racial Composition of the Enrollment in the

St. Louis Elementary and Secondary Schools by District.

1. Year 1972-73.
2. Year 1975-76.
3. Year 1978-79.

B. Consent Judgment and Decree, December 24, 1975.

[1309]*1309 MEMORANDUM

MEREDITH, Chief Judge.

This matter was tried to the Court. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

This is a school desegregation case involving the public schools of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. On February 18, 1972, plaintiffs, who are representatives of the Concerned Parents of North St. Louis, filed their initial complaint. Plaintiffs represent school age children and their respective parents and next friends residing in the metropolitan school district of the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs (hereinafter Liddell, et al.), each of whom is black, brought this action as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other school age children and their parents in that area. Plaintiffs named as defendants the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, and its members (hereinafter Board), in their official capacities, as well as the then Acting Superintendent of Schools and the District Superintendents of the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, all in their official capacities.

In their initial complaint, Liddell, et al., alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 2000d, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Liddell, et al., alleged that the defendants, by their methods of maintaining and operating the school system, have perpetuated racial segregation and discrimination in the St. Louis City School system. Lid-dell, et al., further alleged that the defendants have so acted as to incorporate segregated residential patterns into the schools, to allocate educational resources in a discriminatory manner, and to perpetuate a dual biracial school system, thus failing in their affirmative duty to establish and maintain unitary public schools.

Liddell, et al., prayed that defendants be enjoined to take all steps reasonably necessary to establish a nonsegregated, nondiscriminatory school system, and be required to submit a plan for the allocation of educational resources, geographical boundaries and transportation routes, as well as staff and pupil assignments which will satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment requirements. In addition, Liddell, et al., asked for costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

Defendants answered this complaint, denying the material allegations, on April 19, 1972.

On October 3, 1973, after discovery proceedings by the parties, the Court allowed this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and. (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and notice of the pendency of the class action was duly published. The Court also, by public notice, invited other interested parties to intervene on or before December 1, 1973.

On October 30, 1973, defendants filed a motion to join as additional parties defendant the Governor, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri, the State Board of Education of Missouri, the St. Louis County Superintendent of Education, and the twenty school districts in St.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
469 F. Supp. 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liddell-v-board-of-education-moed-1979.