Slade v. Board Of Ed. Of Harford County

252 F.2d 291, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3694
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 12, 1958
Docket7552
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 252 F.2d 291 (Slade v. Board Of Ed. Of Harford County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slade v. Board Of Ed. Of Harford County, 252 F.2d 291, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3694 (4th Cir. 1958).

Opinion

252 F.2d 291

Roslyn SLADE et al., Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, David G. Harry,
President, Howard S. O'Neill, G. Robert Pennington, Samuel
W. Galbreath, Mrs. Robert (Blanche S.) Fletcher, Charles W.
Willis, Superintendent of the Schools of Harford County, Appellees.

No. 7552.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 16, 1958.
Decided Feb. 12, 1958.

Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore, Md., and Jack Greenberg, New York City (Thurgood Marshall, New York City, Juanita J. Mitchell, Baltimore, Md., Robert B. Watts and Irma Robbins Feder, New York City, on brief), for appellants.

Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md. (Edward C. Wilson Jr., Bel. Air. Md., on brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a school segregation case involving the public schools of Harford County, Maryland. The school board of the county had adopted a plan for the gradual desegregation of elementary schools over a two year period and high schools over a period of five years. At the suggestion of the District Judge, Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County et al., 152 F.Supp. 114, the plan was amended to provide for the transfer of qualified students in high school grades pending the final elimination of segregation in those grades. As so amended the plan was approved by the judge and a decree was entered enforcing it and making special provision for the admission of two Negro children who had been parties to a prior action. The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the District Judge, and we think that his discretion was properly exercised for reasons adequately stated in the opinion, to which nothing need be added. See Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, D.C., 152 F.Supp. 114. See also Allen v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Va., 4 Cir., 249 F.2d 462, 465; Rippy v. Borders, 5 Cir., 250 F.2d 690; Aaron v. Cooper, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 361.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State of Alabama v. United States
304 F.2d 583 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
Slack v. Atlantic White Tower System, Inc.
181 F. Supp. 124 (D. Maryland, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 F.2d 291, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slade-v-board-of-ed-of-harford-county-ca4-1958.