Brief in Support of Appellee's Response to Motion for Leave to Proceed on the Original Papers and Dispense Printed Appendix

    B
U

T
Z

E
L

’ 
l

o
n

g
, 

G
U

S
T

. 
K

L
E

I
N

 
&

 
V

A
N

 
Z

IL
E

 
• 

F
I

R
S

T
 

N
A

T
I

O
N

A
L

 
B

U
I

L
D

I
N

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
 

4
3

2
2

6

#
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF A P P E A L S  

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE C ITY  OF DETROIT, a 
school d istrict of the f ir s t  class,

Appellant,

vs.

RONALD BRAD LEY, ET  A L ,

Appellees.

On Appeal from  the United States D istrict 
Court fo r  the Eastern D istrict of Michigan 

Southern Division

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A P P E L L E E  
A L L E N  PA R K  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, ET  A L 'S  

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 
PROCEED ON THE ORIGINAL PAPERS 

AND TO DISPENSE W ITH  PRINTED A PPE N D IX

The importance of an Appendix to both the Court and counsel is well 

noted in the "Practit ioners  Handbook For Appeals To The United States 

Court Of Appeals For  The Sixth C ircu it", wherein it is stated as follows:

[1] Sponsored by The Cincinnati Chapter of the Federa l Bar Association, 1971.



B
U

T
Z

E
L

, 
L

O
N

G
, 

G
U

S
T

, 
K

L
E

I
N

 
&

 
V

A
N

 
Z

IL
E

 
• 

F
I

R
S

T
 

N
A

T
I

O
N

A
L

 
B

U
I

L
D

I
N

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
 

4
8

2
2

6
"The appendix is in effect the vitals of the record.

It is those parts of the record which the parties desire 
each judge to have before him as he studies the briefs. 
While the entire original record or designated portions 
thereof w ill most likely have been transmitted to the clerk 
of the Court of Appeals, it would be cumbersome for all 
the judges to re fe r  to that record. On the other hand, to 
require the entire reocrd to be reproduced for each of the 
judges would be burdonsome to the parties and would p re ­
sent each judge with more than may be necessary to a just 
disposition of the case, especially since many points raised 
in the tria l may not be pertinent to the issues raised on the 
appeal. The appendix enables the parties to reduce the 
record to manageable s iz e . "  (p. 25)

The remedy decreed by the D istrict Court is the broadest remedy 

ever conceived in a school desegregation case and is unprecedented in 

terms of the absence of findings with respect to fifty-two (52) of the fifty- 

three (53) school districts involved. In this regard, the D istrict Court 

noted as follows:

"The main thrust of the objections to the considera­
tion of a metropolitan remedy advanced by the intervening 

. school districts is that, absent a finding of acts of segrega ­
tion on their part, individually, they may not be considered 
in fashioning a remedy for re l ie f  of the plaintiffs. It must 
be conceded that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled directly 
on this issue; accordingly, we can only proceed by feeling 
our way through its past decisions with respect to the goal to 
be achieved in school desegregation cases. . . . "  Ruling On 
Propr ie ty  Of Considering A  Metropolitan Remedy To A ccom ­
plish Desegregation Of The Public Schools Of The City Of 
Detroit. [Emphasis supplied.]

This Court should not be required to fee l its way through thousands 

of pages of the original transcript. In a case of such monumental signifi-

-2



B
U

T
Z

E
L

, 
L

O
N

G
, 

G
U

S
T

, 
K

L
E

I
N

 
6

 
V

A
N

 
Z

IL
E

 
• 

F
I

R
S

T
 

N
A

T
I

O
N

A
L

 
B

U
I

L
D

I
N

G
 

• 
D

E
T

R
O

IT
 

4
8

2
2

6
cance the Court deserves a ll the assistance which the litigants and their 

counsel can provide in reducing the record to manageable size and 

directing the Court's attention to such portions of the record as may be 

pertinent for consideration by the Court. No less than a dozen attorneys 

have appeared in this case. To require that each judge of this Court 

laboriously dig through almost 6, 000 pages of transcript is absurd when 

the talents of a dozen attorneys representing various parties can be 

employed to separate the wheat from  the chaff and thereby facilitate a 

review by this Court.

While counsel do not presume to suggest the manner in which this 

case may be reviewed, it is not inconceivable that the Court, as in the 

case of Bradley v Richmond, _____F2d_____ (June 5, 1972, CA4), may deter­

mine to conduct such review  en banc. In such event, the burden placed 

upon the Court by the absence of an appendix would be even m ore cumber­

some. „

In a ll likelihood, this case w il l  ultimately find its way to the United 

States Supreme Court and an appendix w il l  ultimately be required in any event.

For 'the reasons hereinabove stated, A llen  Park Public Schools, et 

al, pray that the Motion for Leave to Proceed  on the Original Papers and to 

Dispense With Printed Appendix be denied.

B U TZE L , LONG, GUST, K LE IN  & VAN  Z ILE

Detroit, MichiganD C U  OH, iVii.Biu.gau -xuoou

Telephone: (313) 963-8142

1 ! W illiam  M. Saxton
1881 F irs t  National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Attorneys for A llen  Park Public Schools et al
- 3 -