Answer to Amended Complaint

Public Court Documents
October 26, 1973

Answer to Amended Complaint preview

4 pages

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top