Letter from Shantz to Judge Roth RE: Petition for Rehearing and Brief in Support Thereof
Public Court Documents
July 27, 1972

1 page
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Chachkin to Clerk Re: Milliken v. Bradley, 1972. 14aacae7-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3239e76c-e34d-49fb-b206-45ee98d4497d/correspondence-from-chachkin-to-clerk-re-milliken-v-bradley. Accessed April 05, 2025.
Copied!
May 31, 1972 Hon. Michael Rodak, Jr., Clerk United States Supreme Court Washington, D. C. 20543 Dear Mr. Rodak: Re: Milliken, etal. v . Bradley, et al. No. 71-1468 I am one of the attorneys for the original plaintiffs- respondents in the above-captioned matter (those parties designated as respondents on the cover of the petition from Ronald Bradley to and including the Detroit Branch of the NAACP). f . On behalf of these respondents, I find it necessary to L~" respectfully request an extension of one week within_ which to complete preparation and printing of our brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. Much of the time of counsel for respondents in this matter was devoted recently to the completion of an ~~ extensive hearing in the trial court between March 28 and April 14, 1972, preparation of exhaustive proposed find ings of fact and conclusions of law which were filed with the trial court in early May, and submission of briefs and argument at a hearing on or about May 9, 1972 con- - cerning a motion of the United States of America seeking to intervene in this litigation. These matters as well as the extensive involvement of all counsel for these respondents in litigation to protect the constitutional rights of black school children, including many cases before this Court, have prevented us from being in a position to respond, as we would have liked, within the normal time fixed by the rules. Counsel for respondents are located in four different cities and the necessities of consultation before a draft can be sent to the printer, combined with these | O C O L U M B U S C I R C L E 5 8 6 - 8 3 9 7 N E W Y O R K , N . Y . 1 0 0 19 Hon. Michael Rodak, Jr. - 2- May 31, 1972 other circumstances, impel us to request an extension of one week within which to respond. NJC:nm cc Douglas H. West, Esq. Robert B. Webster, Esq. William M. Saxton, Esq. Robert J. Lord, Esq. Eugene Krasicky, Esq. Theodore Sachs, Esq. Alexander B. Ritchie, Esq. Richard P. Condit, Esq. Kenneth B. McConnell, Esq. George T. Roumell, Jr., Esq. Very truly yours-,- Norman J. Chachkin I O C O L U M B U S C I R C L E 5 8 6-8 3 9 7 N E W Y O R K , N . Y . 1 0 0 1 9