Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Counsel Fees in School Desegregation Cases; Press Conference on Capital Punishment

Press Release
May 15, 1974 - June 10, 1974

Cite this item
Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Counsel Fees in School Desegregation Cases; Press Conference on Capital Punishment preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Letter from Attorney General of CT to Horton RE: Preparation of Record, 1995. 7b3b08ee-a446-f011-877a-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/34fb25eb-4295-4383-950d-ea386dc41475/letter-from-attorney-general-of-ct-to-horton-re-preparation-of-record. Accessed August 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    SENT BY:MOLLER HORTON SHIELDS ; 6-23-95 ;11:17AM HARTFORD CONNECTICUT- 212 226 7392:% 2/ 2 

RICILARD BLUMENTHAL a 5B AY: PO. To 180 
# $ - 

oe 
- - 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
i 

Hartford, CT 06141-0120 

(303) 566-3026 

Office of The Attorney General Tel. (203) 566-4990 

State of Connecticut 
June 20, 1995 

Attorney Wesley Horton 
Moller, Horton and Shields 
90 Gilette Street 
Hartford, CT 06106 

RE: Sheff v. 0’Neill (S.C. 15255) 
  

Dear Wes: 

As we discussed the other day, I propose that you ask the Supreme Court Clerk to prepare the printed record as early as possible in this case. Given the various memoranda of decision, the stipulation and whatever else Judge Hammer renders, [ think the Court would benefit from accurate cites in our brief to the printed record (rather than the usual "R.___") even more in this case than in others. Also, in a case in which the briefs and appendices will probably be voluminous, we both should probably know what won’t make it into the printed record so we won’t be guessing when preparing our respective briefs and end up putting duplicative matter in the Appendix. 

Specifically, I think that the following ought to go in the printed record: the most recent complaint, defendants’ motion to strike, defendants’ latest amended answer, defendants’ motions to strike and for summary judgment, the Judge's two pre-trial memoranda of decision, his post-trial memorandum of decision (with corrections), the Supreme Court's various orders regarding further findings, the Joint Stipulation, the parties’ respective revised proposed findings of fact, anything new that the Judge rules on regarding these proposals, the plaintiffs’ appeal, any motion(s) for review and rulings thereon, and any relevant to Section 4013 papers. 

I’d agree to forgo putting in our respective statements of the issues (or going with what we've both already filed for purposes of the printed record) as long as we agree that both parties can amend their statement of the issues up until the time of the filing of each party’s respective brief. 

Please call me when you have given this some thought. 

Very truly yours, 

Gregory T. D’Auria 
Assistant Attorney General  



  

i 

=. ru evi JY ny 
: \ 

Vv 

A

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