Certificate of Service to Response of Defendant Detroit Board of Education to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
June 12, 1972

1 page
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Letter from Higgins to All Counsel RE: Copy of Court’s Opinion and Judgment, 1973. 38f92826-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f9748077-e807-4fb0-8f47-d1743e32b0dc/letter-from-higgins-to-all-counsel-re-copy-of-court-s-opinion-and-judgment. Accessed April 05, 2025.
Copied!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD BRADLEY, et al., Plaintiffs vs • WILLIAM G, MILLIKEN, Defendants, ana DENISE MAGDCWSKI, Defend ants-Intervenor3, and ALLEN PARK, et al., Def emdants-intervenors, ana KERRY GREEN, at al., Defendants-Interven®rs, and WAYNE COUNTY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Added Defendants* CIVIL ACTION NO* 3525? ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT N ot carries the Defendant, School District *f the City »f Haiatramck, a Municipal C@rp®rati©n, by its Attorney Charles ¥ # Ketulski and answers the amended complaint filed in the above entitled cause as fallows: I* Friar Proceedings 1. Answering Paragraph One «f said amended complaint, said Defendant admits the recurrence ©f the prior proceedings alleged therein; but further states the truth t© be that the prior proceedings sheuld not be. applicable t© said Defendant, the Hamtramck School District, 2. Answering Paragraph ?w®, Defendant admits the allegations therein contained, relative t» jurisdiction and further admits the amount exists in excess of $1,000.00* 3* Answering Paragraph Three, Defendant admits the obligati©n therein contained and further answering this paragraph as ts the allegation incorporating by reference paragraphs tna through twenty-three of the ©riginal complaint. Said Defendant states that each paragraph contained should not be applicable to the School District ®f the City of Hamtramck. II. DEFENDANTS iw Answering Paragraph Four, said Defendant admits the allegations therein c@nts.iaed* 5* Answering Paragraph Five, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained. 6. Answering Paragraph Six, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained. 7* Answering Paragraph Severn, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained. 8. Answering Paragraph Eight, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained. 9 * Answering Paragraph Nine, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained. III. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE 10* Answering Paragraph Ten, said Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations therein contained for want ®f knowledge of same but further answers this paragraph by stating that the allegations suggesting patterns of segregation of black and white students in the Hamtramck School District is not now er never has been practiced in the School District of the City ©f Hamtramck by virtue of the physical arrangement of its Public Schools which consist of only one High School, one Middle School and two Elementary Schools, all of which are being attended by bath black and white students. - 2 - > 11. Answering Paragraph Eleven, said Defendant admits the allegations therein contained but further answers this paragraph by- stating that there is no need for elimination ©f segregation in the School District of the City af Hamtramck, said Defendant District already has a well balanced integrated school system, 12. Answering Paragraph Twelve, said Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations therein contained far want of knowledge of matters existing in the Dtroit Metropolitan Area, 13. Answering Paragraph Thirteen, said Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations but leave Plaintiffs to their proofs • Further answering this paragraph, item3 (a) and (b) Defendant denies the alleged conclusions therein and states that the manner in which the Hamtramck School District is being administered in n® way would add ®r contribute to any further desegregation alleged to exist within the Detroit 'School System* lU* Answering Paragraph Fourteen, said Defendant denies, that the submitted plan for meaningful desegregation would be accomplished, by cross- district bussing insofar as it would apply to the School District ©f the City af Hamtramck. 15. Answering Paragraph Fifteen, said Defendant denies the allegations therein contained* l6* Answering Paragraph Sixteen, said Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations therein contained but leaves Plaintiffs to their prssfs, 17. Answering Paragraph Seventeen, said Defendant admits the :• , • ' ' \ allegations therein contained but further states that the said finding of fact and additional allegations should not- be applicable to the Defendant, School District af the City of Hamtramck* Wherefore, Defendant, School District of the City ©f Hamtramck, asks the Court to deny the relief prayed for in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and that the cause be dismissed as to this Defendant* Charles W. Kotulski, Attorney 1 Defendant, School District of City of Hamtramck 11578 St. Aubia Avenue Hamtramck, Michigan Phone: 369-920)}. October 25, 1973 United States District Court Clerk 133 Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 RE: RONALD BRADLEY, Et Al VS. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Et Al C. A. NO. 35257 Dear Sir: Please find enclosed herewith Answer of Plymouth Community School District, The Board of Education, Members of the Board of Education and the Superintendent to Amended Complaint to be filed in the above action. Very truly yours, SEMPLINER, THOMAS AND GUTH WJG/jb enc. cc: Mr. Paul R. Dimond Louis R. Lucas 906 Rose Avenue 525 Commerce Title Bldg. Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104 Memphis, Tenn. 38103 J. Harold Flannery . Center for Law & Education Larsen Hall 14 Appian Way Cambridge, Mass 02138 Jack Greenberg Norman J. Chachkin 10 Columbus Circle New York, N.Y. 10019 Nathaniel Jones1790 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10019 Elliott Hall 950 Guardian Bldg. Detroit, Michigan 48226